Control the EVE client

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

With only openWorldHint in annotations, the description adds useful behavioral context: it acts on a running client, requires an in-game login, and performs side-effecting UI actions such as setting autopilot or opening windows. It does not cover failure modes, reversibility, or rate limits, but it meaningfully supplements the sparse 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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Each clause corresponds to a supported action, so the length is justified by the need to enumerate the action set.

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 UI-control tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the key prerequisites and action semantics an agent needs to invoke it. It leaves some gaps around result behavior and failure handling, but those are secondary for selecting and calling the 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?

The description maps action values to target types, for example waypoint targets as system/NPC station/structure and open_info targets as item/character/corporation/alliance. This adds semantic meaning beyond the schema's generic target description. It does not explain the optional character parameter, but the schema already documents that default.

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: it acts on the running EVE client. It enumerates the four supported UI actions, making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as route_plan or item_info, but its UI-control nature is distinctive.

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 gives an important prerequisite: the character must be logged in to the game. It lists the action choices, which implies usage contexts. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives like route_plan for routing or lookup/item_info for data retrieval.

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