auth_config

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'get,' implying a read operation. It does not disclose what the configuration contains, whether any authorization is needed, or whether the operation is side-effect free. The single verb provides minimal behavioral context beyond the tool's name.

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 sentence that is both succinct and directly informative. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no redundancy or irrelevant details.

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?

As a simple getter with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It tells the user that this tool fetches authentication configuration, but it does not specify the structure or content of the returned configuration, which could be useful given the absence of an output schema.

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 is empty with 100% coverage. Since there are no parameters to explain, the description is not required to add parameter details. The baseline score of 4 applies here due to the absence of parameters.

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 main action: 'Get authentication configuration for the workspace.' It uses a specific verb ('get') and a clear resource ('authentication configuration'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool auth_info, which likely has a similar purpose.

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 like auth_info. There is no mention of prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions, leaving the reader without direction on tool selection.

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