check_server_auth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return type but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, requires any credentials, or has side effects. The verb 'check' is suggestive but not an explicit safety guarantee.

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 short and structured with Args/Returns, but it slightly repeats 'authentication requirements and status' in the title and the returns section. Still, it's efficient.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, parameter, and return. However, it lacks any mention of error conditions or prerequisites, and since an output schema exists, some return details are unnecessary.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by defining the 'server_name' parameter with examples ('github', 'slack'), giving clear semantic meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 states a clear verb ('check') and a specific resource ('authentication requirements and status for a server'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on auth inspection rather than enabling/disabling or listing servers.

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 implies a use case (checking auth status) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools are provided.

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