check_auth

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool makes network/auth calls (requests a Keycloak token, invokes comprobarVersion), which implies side effects and a dependency on the auth service. It says nothing about failure modes, whether it mutates state, or expected latency/errors.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the usage hint. Every clause contributes; nothing is padded.

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 simple zero-param diagnostic tool this covers the essentials of what and when, but with no output schema the description never indicates what a successful or failed check returns, which is the main thing an agent needs for a verification tool.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter semantics to explain or compensate for.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Comprueba la cuenta de servicio') and even names the internal steps (Keycloak token, comprobarVersion), so the agent knows exactly what happens. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like get_identity or set_identity, which also concern identity/auth.

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?

'Úsalo para verificar la instalación' gives a clear when-to-use scenario (installation/setup verification). No when-not conditions or named alternatives are provided, but the intended context is unambiguous.

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