Validate Token

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds value by specifying the three categories of returned information (identity, version, server config), which is beyond what annotations provide. It does not cover error behavior (e.g., invalid token) but is generally transparent.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the core action, resource, and output. No redundant words; every part earns its place.

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 parameterless tool with comprehensive annotations, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and returns. No output schema is needed given the simple textual output described. Completeness is achieved given the tool's simplicity.

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 no parameters, so the description's role in parameter semantics is minimal. The schema coverage is 100% by default, and the description correctly adds no further parameter details. Baseline 4 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 specifies the verb 'validate' and the resource 'configured token', and lists the return values: identity, version, and server configuration status. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gitlab_get_current_user and gitlab_get_version by combining these into a single validation endpoint.

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 implies usage for token validation and health checking but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like calling gitlab_get_current_user and gitlab_get_version separately. With many sibling tools, clear guidance on when to use this combined validation would improve decision-making.

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