check_credentials

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: 'MODE: read-only', 'AUTH: OAuth 2.0 required', 'CREDITS: 0 (free)', and details the output format. This provides complete transparency for a read-only credential check.

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 concise and well-structured with clear sections (MODE, AUTH, CREDITS, OUTPUT, WHEN TO USE). Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the purpose.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description specifies the exact output structure. Combined with auth, mode, and usage guidance, the description is complete for this simple credential-checking 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (one parameter fully described). The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it simply mentions 'network' in the purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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: 'Verify that the GAM OAuth credentials for a network are still valid and have required scopes.' It uses a specific verb (verify) and resource (credentials), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'initiate_gam_auth' which handles re-authorization.

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 explicitly provides a 'WHEN TO USE' section: 'Call at the start of a session to verify credentials before running operations. If valid=false, call initiate_gam_auth to re-authorize.' This gives clear context and directs to an alternative tool when needed.

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