eterna_setup_guide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds the useful note 'No credentials needed', implying no auth setup, but does not disclose what the tool returns (e.g., textual steps, a checklist) or whether it performs any action beyond presenting documentation. The description is not misleading, just minimal.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the purpose, enumerates all options, and appends the key constraint ('No credentials needed') with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter guide tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. It covers purpose, options, and the auth constraint. It could mention what the guide output looks like, but the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes the 'client' parameter and its enum. The description adds value by explaining what each enum path means in plain language ('the Claude connector (no code), the official CLI, a generic stdio MCP client via mcp-remote, or this starter server itself'), helping the agent map values to real integration options.

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 uses a specific verb ('connecting') and identifies the resource ('Eterna'), then enumerates exactly what integration paths the guide covers. It is clearly distinct from siblings like eterna_connection_status or eterna_fee_estimate, which address status and fees rather than setup.

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 the tool is for setup/onboarding ('Step-by-step guide for connecting an AI agent to Eterna') and lists the four supported client types, which tells an agent when to call it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings (e.g., 'use eterna_connection_status to verify a connection after setup'), so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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