duo_check_credentials

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states it is 'side-effect-free' and 'does not initiate any MFA transaction,' which are the key behavioral traits an agent needs to know. It does not describe the exact return/error semantics, but for a no-argument validation tool this is a limited gap.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the side-effect clarification is an efficient second sentence that earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, side-effect-free validation tool, the description covers what it does, what credentials are involved, and the key behavioral guarantee. There is no output schema, but the description already implies the result: whether the credentials are correct and the API is reachable. Nothing essential is missing.

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 is empty, so the 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies. The description still adds relevant context by explaining that the ikey/skey/api host are configured credentials the tool checks, not parameters the agent must supply.

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 ('Validate'), a specific resource ('configured Duo credentials (ikey/skey/api host)'), and an expected outcome ('Auth API is reachable'). The purpose is unmistakable and clearly distinct from the sibling tools, which all operate on Duo entities rather than on the credential configuration itself.

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 makes clear this is a configuration/connectivity check and even calls out that it does not initiate an MFA transaction, telling the agent not to expect MFA behavior. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for related tasks, but the sibling set contains no other credential-checking tool, so the intended usage context is clear.

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