cpu_authenticate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It details the authentication flow (SIWE in EVM, URL approve in AGW), token storage, automatic subsequent tool behavior, and force parameter's effect. This is rich behavioral context beyond a simple 'authenticate'.

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 efficiently structured with a one-sentence purpose, usage condition, mode behaviors, and force explanation. No filler; each sentence adds value.

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 the tool's simplicity (one optional param, no output schema) and abundance of sibling tools, the description adequately covers purpose, usage triggers, mode-specific behaviors, and edge cases. It is a complete standalone explanation.

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 sole parameter `force` is already described in schema, but the description adds a concrete scenario ('after the game server was reset and the stored token references a stale user'), enhancing understanding beyond schema coverage.

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 'Create a blockchain session' as the core function, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on authentication/session setup rather than game actions.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Call this tool when other tools fail with authentication or session errors', providing clear when-to-use guidance. Also clarifies force=true usage for stale sessions, and mentions both EVM and AGW modes.

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