cpu_authenticate

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 that in EVM mode it signs via SIWE and stores a token, while in AGW mode it returns a URL for user approval. It also explains force discarding the cached session. It does not describe error handling or return values, but the core behaviors are well-covered.

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 concise at five sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by usage guidance, mode details, and parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value without 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?

The description covers the two authentication modes and usage scenarios, but lacks information about return values. For EVM mode, no output is described; for AGW mode, it mentions a URL but not what happens after user approval. This gap reduces completeness for an authentication 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 only parameter, force, has a schema description covering its purpose. The main description adds context on when to use force (e.g., after a game server reset), providing extra value beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, this additional context merits a score above baseline.

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: 'Create a blockchain session.' It specifies when to call it (when other tools fail with authentication errors) and distinguishes between EVM and AGW modes. This sets it apart from sibling tools, none of which handle authentication.

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 this tool when authentication errors occur, and explains the force parameter for discarding cached sessions. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it; however, the error-driven guidance implies appropriate usage.

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