gcloud_auth_print_access_token

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a safe read operation (printing a token), but does not explicitly state whether this triggers side effects (e.g., refreshing credentials), requires specific permissions, or returns the token in a particular format. Given that annotations are absent, this is a moderate gap, but the core action is simple and well described.

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 concise sentences. The first states the action and resource, the second provides a brief usage context. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and use case. However, it lacks behavioral details (e.g., error conditions, auth prerequisites) that would be helpful for a production agent. It feels slightly incomplete for a security-sensitive operation like token generation, but adequate for a minimal viable description.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the output (a printed access token) and the concept that the account parameter is optional (specific account or active account). This goes beyond the schema's minimal description ('Specific account to get token for (optional)').

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 action ('generate and print') and the resource ('access token for the active account'). It also notes the purpose ('useful for API calls'), which distinguishes it from its sibling gcloud_auth_list (lists accounts) and gcloud_auth_print_identity_token (prints identity token). It is missing explicit scope differentiation from the identity token sibling.

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 says 'useful for API calls,' which gives a hint of usage context, but it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus gcloud_auth_print_identity_token (both print tokens) or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, and there is no mention of prerequisites like being logged in.

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