authenticate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the action ('complete authentication') and usage flow, but lacks details on behavioral traits such as error handling, response format, side effects (e.g., session creation), or security implications. This is a significant gap for an authentication tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, consisting of two sentences that efficiently explain the purpose and usage. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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's complexity (authentication with OAuth2), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and usage flow but misses key contextual details like expected outcomes, error cases, or integration with other auth tools (e.g., 'check_auth_status'). This leaves gaps for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 100% description coverage, with the 'code' parameter fully documented as 'OAuth2 authentication code (value after "code=" in the redirect URL).' The description adds minimal value beyond this, only reinforcing the code's source. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'complete authentication using an authentication code.' It specifies the verb ('complete authentication') and resource ('authentication code'), making the function understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_auth_url' or 'reset_auth' beyond mentioning 'get_auth_url' in usage context.

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 provides explicit guidance on when and how to use this tool: 'Use the authentication code obtained from the redirect URL after accessing the URL from get_auth_url.' It names the prerequisite tool ('get_auth_url') and specifies the source of the code, offering clear context for usage without alternatives needed.

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