archivebox_authentication

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Manage archivebox authentication operations', giving no information about side effects, permissions, or behavior beyond the action name. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 only three words, which is under-specified rather than concise. It fails to provide enough detail to be useful, wasting the opportunity to inform the agent.

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 is simple with two parameters and an output schema, the description should at least hint at the return value or post-conditions. It does not, leaving the agent without complete context for robust usage.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides for 'action' and 'params_json'. Thus, it meets the baseline without improvement.

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 states 'Manage archivebox authentication operations', which gives a general domain but lacks specific actions. The input schema clarifies the possible actions (get_api_token, check_api_token), but the description alone is vague and does not differentiate well from siblings like archivebox_cli.

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 the sibling tools archivebox_cli or archivebox_core. The description offers no context for appropriate usage scenarios.

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