List auth methods

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the valuable context that the endpoint is public, which is not captured by the annotations, and clarifies that it returns which methods are configured. There is no contradiction with 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 a single concise sentence that immediately states the resource and provides a key qualifier (public). Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy with the title or schema.

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 has no parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description fully covers the necessary context. It tells the agent what the tool does and that it is public, which is sufficient for a simple read-only list operation.

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 the schema coverage is 100% (empty object). According to the rubric, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4. The description does not need to explain any parameter semantics because there are none.

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: to list the login methods configured on the gateway. The phrase "which login methods the gateway has configured" is specific and distinguishes this from sibling tools like auth_status or auth_email_login_start by focusing on configuration discovery rather than authentication flow.

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 some context by noting the operation is "public," implying it can be called without authentication. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or conditions.

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