workbench-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it acquires a JWT, establishes session-wide authentication for HTTP tools, and returns success/failure results. However, it doesn't mention potential rate limits, error conditions beyond basic failure, or what happens if called multiple times in a session. Still, it provides substantial behavioral context beyond basic purpose.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It begins with the core purpose, explains the behavioral impact, then provides clear parameter documentation and return value details. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. The parameter and return sections are clearly labeled and informative.

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/session management), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (implied by the Returns section), the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, usage context, parameters, return values, and behavioral consequences. The output schema information in the Returns section means the description doesn't need to explain return format details.

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 fully compensates by explaining both parameters. It clearly defines 'email' as 'The user whose identity the MCP session will impersonate' and 'reason' as 'Optional free-text description of why this session is needed. Stored in the JWT claims for audit purposes.' This adds crucial semantic meaning that the bare schema lacks.

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: 'Acquire a session-scoped JWT for *email* from the backend broker.' This specifies both the action (acquire) and the resource (session-scoped JWT), distinguishing it from sibling tools like auth_clear_session (which ends sessions) and auth_status (which checks session state). The description goes beyond just restating the name/title.

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 to use this tool: 'After a successful call every HTTP tool call in this session will automatically use the returned token (unless the tool call provides its own ``jwt_token``).' This explains the tool's role in establishing authentication for subsequent operations, making it clear this should be used at session start rather than for individual HTTP calls.

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