Report what this server can and cannot do with your credentials

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral nuance beyond that: it distinguishes server-side read-only behavior from token-level write capability, and it promises the tool never reads, stores, or transmits token values. It also clarifies the mechanism of asking each CLI what it is logged in as.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: the core report capability, the important read-only distinction, a direct usage instruction, and a security guarantee. It is front-loaded with the main function before providing context.

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?

With no parameters, rich annotations, an output schema, and a description covering purpose, usage context, and security-relevant behavior, nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The baseline of 4 applies because nothing needs to be documented beyond the already-complete empty 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 names a specific verb ('Reports') and a specific resource: which cloud/VCS CLIs are authenticated and whether those credentials are write-capable. This clearly distinguishes the tool from the scanner/policy/finding siblings, none of which address credential capability checking.

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 says to call this tool 'before telling anyone the integration is read-only', giving a clear trigger condition. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool appears to be a close alternative, so the guidance is adequate.

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