get_auth_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get information' which implies a read operation, but does not reveal what specific auth details are returned, whether it makes network calls, or if it requires prior setup. This is a minimal 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 description is a single efficient sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose. It is not verbose, but the brevity leaves out useful elaboration such as what 'auth information' consists of. Still, for a simple tool, it earns a high conciseness score.

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 the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., authentication method, expiry, user details). It gives a basic purpose but is incomplete in conveying the full scope of 'information.' Adequate for a simple zero-param tool but could be more descriptive.

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 schema is trivially complete (100% coverage). The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and its lack of parameter information is not a deficiency. Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools is appropriate.

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 action ('Get information') and the resource ('current authentication method'), making it specific and distinct from sibling tools that deal with blockchains, contracts, transactions, vaults, and tokens. There is no ambiguity in what this tool does.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus others, nor any context about prerequisites or typical use cases. The description simply restates the function without explaining how it fits into a workflow.

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