ie_get_started

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

The description adds 'No network,' a meaningful behavioral trait beyond the annotations' readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, indicating the tool does not perform network calls and can be used offline. It also reveals that the tool returns instructional content (setup, sign-in steps, examples, scope), which clarifies its non-mutating nature.

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 a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the key directive 'Start here' and then enumerating the tool's contents. Every phrase adds value, and 'No network' is a deliberately compact behavioral note.

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 zero-parameter onboarding tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what the tool provides, its offline nature, and the fact that it is the starting point. It could go slightly further by explicitly stating the return format or that it is a guide, but the current text is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% by vacuity, so the description need not explain any parameters. For a no-argument tool, the baseline is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than parameter syntax.

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 opens with 'Start here,' clearly identifying this tool as the onboarding entry point, and lists its contents: setup, browser sign-in steps, usage examples, and scope. It is distinct from the action-oriented siblings like ie_login_start or ie_auth_status, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

'Start here' explicitly signals that this tool should be invoked before other ie_* tools, providing clear usage sequencing. The intent is implied rather than fully explicit—it does not name alternatives or say 'when not to use'—but it remains the strongest possible guidance for a getting-started tool.

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