start_darwin

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

It discloses the non-waiting/async behavior, the DIRECTA_AUTOSTART=true prerequisite, the single-session limitation, and the user-facing OTP prompt—all beyond the annotations. It also qualifies the idempotentHint by warning that repeated calls can disturb login, without contradicting the hint.

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?

Although the description is long, every sentence carries necessary operational context: prerequisites, short-return behavior, user instructions, and safety constraints. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words.

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?

The description covers preconditions, side effects, follow-up procedure, and user interaction rules. Since an output schema exists, return values need no explanation, making the description fully complete for this complex 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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. With no parameters, the baseline score is 4, and the description appropriately omits parameter details.

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 opening sentence 'Launch dGO, Directa's launcher, so the user can bring Darwin up' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_connection or get_darwin_status. The purpose is unambiguous and front-loaded.

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 explicitly says to call check_connection afterward, warns 'Do not call this repeatedly while waiting', and states 'never call it on your own initiative'—providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. It names the follow-up tool and explains the single-session constraint.

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