ateam_auth

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains that env vars are not sufficient, that global endpoints work without auth, and the distinction between api_key and master_key with tenant requirements. It lacks details on error handling or response format, but covers essential behavioral context.

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?

Three well-structured sentences: first states purpose, second adds usage nuance, third addresses exceptions. No wasted words.

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 an auth tool, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, parameter usage, and special cases. It is complete given the complexity and absence of output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by explaining the context for parameter usage: must call explicitly despite env vars, master_key for cross-tenant, tenant requirement with master_key. This clarifies meaning beyond the 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 clearly states 'Authenticate with A-Team' and specifies it is required before any tenant-aware operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting which operations (global endpoints) do not require auth, providing strong purpose clarity.

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 states when to use (before tenant-aware operations) and when not to use (global endpoints). It also addresses the nuance that environment variables alone are insufficient and that master_key is an alternative for cross-tenant operations, offering comprehensive usage guidance.

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