MFA Configuration

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds valuable context by specifying what information is retrieved (MFA providers, rules, bypass conditions) and the use cases (audit, troubleshooting), enhancing understanding beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without waste, making it efficiently structured and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 0 parameters, rich annotations (read-only, etc.), and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, and behavioral context. A minor gap is the lack of detail on return format (e.g., structure of configuration data), but this is partially mitigated by the annotations and low complexity.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and usage without redundant parameter details, aligning with the baseline expectation for zero-parameter tools.

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 verb 'Get' and specifies the resource 'multi-factor authentication provider configuration' with detailed components (enabled MFA providers, criteria rules, bypass conditions). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ras_site_get_ad_integration by focusing on MFA security, making the purpose specific and well-differentiated.

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 states when to use this tool: 'to audit MFA security posture or troubleshoot MFA login failures.' This provides clear context for usage. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, which prevents a perfect score.

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