Log in to agy (Google auth)

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well beyond annotations by detailing side effects: opens terminal, runs agy, drives OAuth, polls account store, and reports signed-in email. Explains return fields (logged_in, email, already, message) and timeout behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is well-structured: begins with purpose, then process, args, returns, platform note. Each sentence adds value; no redundancy. Could be slightly more concise, but overall efficient and front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Completely covers all essential aspects: authentication flow, platform limitation, timeout handling, return format, and fallback instruction. Without an output schema, the description fully explains return values. No gaps for a single-parameter tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema already fully describes timeout_ms with min, max, default, and description. Description restates the range and adds context 'how long to wait for login to complete', but adds minimal new information beyond what schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states that the tool ensures agy is logged in, explaining the OAuth flow and distinguishing from sibling tool agy_auth_status which checks status. The verb 'log in' and resource 'agy' are specific and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides clear context on when to use (to ensure login), what happens if already authenticated (returns immediately), and instructions for timeout scenario (finish login and call agy_auth_status). Also notes macOS exclusivity and alternative for other platforms. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' statement but overall guidance is strong.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.