eve_auth_start

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the behavioral trait of opening a dashboard, which implies a user-facing action (likely requiring user interaction or browser access). However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., if it modifies state), or response format, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads key information (alias relationship and action) with zero waste. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and usage, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (simple alias with no parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimal but complete for its purpose. However, it could benefit from more context on how the dashboard functions or integration with other auth tools, leaving room for improvement in completeness.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter semantics, but this is acceptable given the lack of parameters, warranting a baseline score of 4 as it adequately covers the tool's scope without unnecessary details.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose as an alias for 'eve_auth_login' and specifies the action ('opens the dashboard') and the resource/context ('for adding/switching characters'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'eve_auth_login' by indicating it's an alias, and from other auth tools (e.g., 'eve_auth_list_characters', 'eve_auth_status') by focusing on dashboard access.

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 description implies usage context by stating it's for 'adding/switching characters', which suggests when to use it (e.g., for authentication or character management tasks). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives beyond the alias reference, leaving some ambiguity compared to other auth tools.

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