rt_check_auth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses that it connects without credentials and flags unauthenticated servers, but does not mention potential side effects, rate limits, or whether the tool itself requires any authentication to run.

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 with three sentences, front-loading the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 has 6 parameters including nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should be more complete. It does not explain the output format or how results are returned, and it could clarify the transports better.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific guidance, but the schema descriptions are clear and self-explanatory. Description does not need to repeat schema details.

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: 'Test if MCP server requires authentication.' It explains the specific behavior of connecting without credentials and checking tool accessibility, distinguishing it clearly from sibling tools like rt_check_oauth and rt_check_scope_creep.

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 implies when to use this tool (to test authentication requirements), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Given the many sibling tools, it could be improved by noting this is a basic auth check versus more specific ones.

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