oauth_introspect

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

Given no annotations, the description partially discloses behavior: it performs token introspection against a URL or falls back to local JWT decoding. However, it does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, or error conditions.

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 extremely concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the standard name and RFC reference. No unnecessary text.

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?

Despite low complexity, the description is incomplete: it lacks explanation of return values, when to provide client credentials, and how it differs from similar sibling tools like decode_jwt. Output schema is absent.

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 0%. The description only adds meaning for introspection_url (optional, fallback behavior). Other parameters (token, client_id, client_secret) are not explained beyond their names and defaults.

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 performs OAuth 2.0 Token-Introspection per RFC 7662, with explicit mention of introspection_url and fallback local JWT decoding. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like decode_jwt and validate_jwt.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions a fallback behavior, it does not specify scenarios where oauth_introspect is preferred over sibling tools like check_permissions or verify_oidc_claims.

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