tollbooth-oauth2-collector

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It states what the tool shows but does not explicitly disclose read-only behavior, potential side effects, cost, or what TTL specifically refers to. The term 'health check' weakly implies safety, but the disclosure is 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately identifies the tool as a health check and names the two key outputs. No wasted 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?

Given zero parameters, an output schema, and a simple health-check purpose, the description names the essential pieces (pending authorization codes and TTL). It is mostly complete, though it could benefit from clarifying TTL and differentiating from 'service_status'.

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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids parameter-related details since none exist.

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 ('shows') and a specific resource ('pending authorization codes and TTL'), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'service_status', but the named metrics set it apart.

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 phrase 'Health check' implies a usage context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over 'service_status' or other alternatives. The description provides a general idea but lacks when-to-use/when-not-to-use direction.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the critical side effect ('one-time read, auto-deleted'), the return shape ('encrypted code'), and the decryption mechanism using the state token. This is strong behavioral disclosure for a simple retrieval tool.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. The key behavioral qualifier is front-loaded in parentheses, and the context sentence adds necessary protocol detail without repeating the schema.

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 tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, invocation timing, return value, and destructive one-time behavior. It is nearly complete; it omits only minor details such as error cases or what happens when the state token is invalid.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the 'state' parameter. The description adds marginal value by noting the caller uses 'the same state token' for decryption, but it does not need to compensate for any schema gap.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource — 'Retrieve a stored authorization code' — and adds a defining behavioral qualifier ('one-time read, auto-deleted'). It clearly differentiates this tool from the sibling status tools and from store_code, making its role unmistakable.

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 gives clear context: 'Called by the originating MCP server to pick up the code after the user has authorized in the browser.' This tells an agent when the tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is sufficient for correct invocation.

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

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it delegates to the SDK's canonical implementation, reports the same envelope as other DPYC services, and explicitly states that vault/courier/operator fields are False/empty because this is an unauthenticated community utility with no operator runtime. It also explains the semantic importance of the build_info field.

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 well-structured, with the first sentence front-loading the purpose. The subsequent paragraphs add necessary context about deployment verification, the canonical envelope, and unauthenticated field behavior. It is slightly verbose for a zero-param tool, but each sentence earns its place by conveying meaningful details.

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 tool with an output schema, the description is comprehensive: it explains the tool's raison d'être (deploy verification), the canonical payload shape, the critical field's meaning, and the security context. It does not need to describe return values since an output schema exists, but it adds crucial context that schema alone cannot.

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 the description need not explain parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output/payload meaning rather than input. It adds value by clarifying the load-bearing field, but this is output context, not parameter concerns.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Report the running build so a redeploy can be verified.' It clearly states the core function and distinguishes the tool from siblings by describing it as the canonical, single-source service_status payload, which is useful for deploy verification rather than just generic status.

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 provides a clear use case: to probe the live service after a merge and confirm the deployed Git SHA. It warns that without this tool, deploy verification fails because the SHA reads as '<none>'. It does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., collector_status) or exclusions, but the context strongly implies when to use it.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does substantial work: it reveals the NIP-44 sealing to the operator, that only the operator's nsec can open it, and that the Neon row is keyed by the patron npub. It does not address overwrite/idempotency or error behavior, but the cryptographic and keying behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 front-loaded with the action, then adds context in a short, information-dense paragraph. Every sentence contributes: invocation context, state semantics, sealing behavior, and retrieval compatibility. No filler.

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 two-parameter store operation, the description covers everything an agent needs: when it runs, how state is structured, what sealing means, and how the row is keyed. The output schema exists to cover return shape, so the absence of return details is not a 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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it explains that state encodes both patron and operator npub, that the patron is the lookup key, and that the code is sealed to the operator. This helps the agent construct state correctly.

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 a specific verb and object: 'Store a sealed OAuth2 authorization code.' It goes beyond the name, and the clarification that retrieval is handled by retrieve_code(state=patron_npub) differentiates it from the sibling tool.

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?

It explicitly states the exact call-site context: 'Called by the serverless callback function after the browser redirect.' It also contrasts with the counterpart retrieve_code, making when-to-store vs when-to-retrieve unambiguous.

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