mess_get_auth_key_info

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by disclosing error behavior ('Returns 401/403 if the key is expired') and clarifying the auth key source ('passed in Authorization header'), which isn't in annotations. However, it doesn't detail rate limits, permissions, or other behavioral traits beyond annotations.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are structured but could be more integrated. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the parameter section is brief and could be clearer. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns: JSON AuthKey details'), the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose, parameter semantics, and error behavior, though it lacks usage guidelines and full parameter coverage. For this context, it's adequate but not exhaustive.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'params: auth_key (the key to inspect)', which adds meaning by specifying the parameter's purpose. However, it doesn't cover the full input schema (which includes 'session' as an optional property in AuthInput) or explain the structure of 'params', leaving gaps. The baseline is 3 due to partial compensation.

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's purpose: 'Get info about the auth key currently in use (passed in Authorization header).' It specifies the verb ('Get info') and resource ('auth key'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'mess_get_auth_keys' or 'mess_create_auth_key'. The description is clear but lacks sibling differentiation for a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'mess_get_auth_keys' (which likely lists multiple keys) or 'mess_create_auth_key', nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. The only implicit guidance is the parameter description, which is insufficient for explicit usage guidelines.

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