nous_portal_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 key behaviors: makes one unmetered external request, stores private device code locally, and never opens a browser or sends the code. However, it does not describe the return value or what to do with the stored code. Missing details about the authentication state.

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, each providing essential information. The first sentence states the action, and the second elaborates on key behaviors. No wasted words, and the verb 'Start' is front-loaded.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral aspects. However, it does not explain what the tool returns, how to use the stored code (e.g., with auth_poll), or potential errors. For a start tool, it is adequate but could guide the next steps.

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 input schema has no parameters with 100% coverage (none exist). According to guidelines, high schema coverage gives a baseline of 3. The description adds no parameter semantics because there are no parameters.

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: 'Start a Nous Portal device-code login.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like nous_portal_auth_poll, which handles polling, and nous_portal_status, which likely shows status. The verb 'Start' plus the resource 'device-code login' is specific.

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 in headless/automated contexts by stating it never opens a browser or sends the code elsewhere. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool vs. siblings or when not to use it. The context signals indicate no parameters, so it's straightforward.

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