eve_login

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it opens a browser for SSO and imposes a 3-minute completion window. However, it doesn't mention what happens after login (e.g., session persistence, return values), which would add more transparency.

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 extremely concise—two sentences, front-loaded with the action verb. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 login flow with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential action and the time constraint. It could be more complete by noting what happens after successful login (e.g., whether it establishes a session), but given the low complexity, it is sufficiently informative.

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 baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the empty schema is self-explanatory.

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 the EVE Online login flow' with a specific mechanism ('Opens a browser for SSO'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool eve_auth_status, which likely checks login status rather than initiating login.

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?

Usage is implied—use when the user wants to initiate EVE Online login—but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like eve_auth_status, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The presence of a sibling status tool makes this differentiation valuable, but it's absent.

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