tv_auth_session_start

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does disclose the immediate action—opening a browser and showing instructions—and signals an authentication requirement. However, it does not mention potential side effects such as stored session state or what happens when open_browser is false.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the primary action and purpose efficiently.

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 simple one-boolean-parameter setup tool, the description is mostly adequate. The main gaps are the undocumented open_browser parameter and the lack of explicit guidance on side effects or alternatives, leaving some uncertainty for an agent deciding whether this is the right entry point.

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 0%, and the description never explains the open_browser parameter. The phrase 'in browser' hints at the default behavior, but an agent cannot infer what setting open_browser to false does or how the parameter affects the flow.

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 and resource: 'Open TradingView login page in browser and show session setup instructions.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling session-management tools like tv_auth_session_status or tv_auth_session_clear by describing an interactive setup action.

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 'for authenticated MCP usage' gives context and implies this is the manual authentication setup step. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like tv_auth_session_login_auto or tv_auth_session_set, so the agent must infer when to prefer this tool.

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