ro_start

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It does: it states the launch-and-connect action, and specifies the return value ('game state' or 'pending prompt if login needs an answer'), which reveals a potential interactive step. It doesn't cover failure modes or idempotency, but for a start operation this is adequate.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The action is front-loaded, the critical ordering constraint comes next, and the return behavior finishes. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter start tool with no output schema, the description covers the launch action, the ordering requirement, and the return behavior (including the edge case of login prompt). An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and understand what to expect. The structure of the game state itself is likely the domain of ro_state.

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 zero parameters, so the schema covers all parameter semantics trivially (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter-specific detail, which is appropriate. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool earns a baseline 4.

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 verb ('Launch') and resource ('OpenKore' and 'local rAthena server') and explicitly declares it as the entry point ('Must be called before any other tool'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ro_stop or ro_state, making purpose 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?

The instruction 'Must be called before any other tool' is an explicit, unambiguous usage guideline. It clearly tells the agent when to use this tool relative to all others in the sibling set, which is exactly the context needed for an orchestration tool.

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