mal_authenticate

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 states the tool 'Get instructions', which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it does not explicitly disclose that it makes no changes, requires no credentials, or what side effects (if any) exist. The behavioral transparency is adequate for a simple instruction tool but lacks explicit safety or idempotency details.

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, clear sentence with no extraneous words. Every word adds value: 'Get instructions' specifies the action, 'for authenticating with MyAnimeList' specifies the resource, and 'using the web interface' adds context. It is front-loaded and perfectly concise.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It covers the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more complete by hinting at what the instructions look like (e.g., URL, steps) or how they relate to other tools like 'mal_get_auth_status'. Still, for a zero-param tool, it is sufficiently informative.

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, and schema coverage is 100% (no params to cover). According to guidelines, 0 parameters sets a baseline of 4, and the description adds no additional parameter information, which is appropriate since none is needed. The description's focus on 'instructions' implies no input requirements.

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 instructions for authenticating with MyAnimeList using the web interface'. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('instructions for authenticating'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'mal_get_auth_status' (which checks status) and 'mal_revoke_auth' (which revokes) by focusing on providing instructions rather than performing authentication actions.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical usage scenarios, or when not to use it. For example, it does not indicate that this should be used before other MAL tools or that it is a first step for authentication. The context signals show no explicit usage direction.

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