auth_passkey_authentication_options

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 says nothing about whether this requires an existing session, returns a challenge, or is a read-only step in a multi-step flow; for an auth endpoint with zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful gap in behavioral disclosure.

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 meaningful sentence is front-loaded, but the description is cluttered with the raw route string and a 'Tags:' line that add no value to an agent. It's short but not efficient.

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 an authentication endpoint with no annotations and no output schema, an agent would need to know this returns a challenge/options payload and that it precedes verify. None of that flow context is provided, so the definition is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema fully covers the input surface and the baseline is 4. The description adds nothing further needed, and none is required.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (authentication options for passkey), and the HTTP path/verb anchors it to a concrete endpoint. It's slightly obscured by the raw route and 'Tags: Auth Controller' boilerplate, but the resource is identifiable and distinct from siblings like auth_passkey_authentication_verify.

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 guidance on when to use this versus auth_passkey_authentication_verify or auth_login. The passkey flow context (this is the first step before verify) is left entirely to inference, so an agent has no explicit routing signal.

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