Check In Yolfi Agent Setup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds important behavioral context beyond that: on success it stores the returned yolfi_agent_* credential for later SDK, CLI, and MCP use. It does not explain failure behavior or retry semantics, but it discloses the key side effect clearly.

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?

The description is two tight sentences, front-loads the check-in purpose, and immediately adds the credential-storage consequence. There is no redundant or filler text.

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?

The description covers the main purpose and the credential-storage side effect, and annotations carry safety/open-world signals. However, with no output schema, it does not explain what the tool returns on success or failure, nor does it clarify behavior for a non-idempotent check-in call.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters, including the agentId alias. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific action and resource: checking whether browser authorization finished for the Yolfi agent setup, plus the credential-storage side effect. It is clear enough to distinguish from generic auth tools, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as yolfi_agent_setup_start or yolfi_auth_status.

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?

The phrase 'Check whether browser authorization finished' implies this is used after browser-based setup has begun, but it gives no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternative. The agent must infer the correct point in the flow.

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