rt_check_oauth

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses test behavior: three request types and the flagging action. It doesn't cover edge cases like rate limits or side effects, but for a testing tool this is adequate transparency.

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 concise sentences with front-loaded purpose and no redundancy. Every sentence adds essential information without filler.

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 test tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, behavior, and usage constraints adequately.

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% with all 6 parameters described. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 tests OAuth token validation for HTTP/SSE MCP servers, with specific test scenarios (no token, invalid, expired JWT). It distinguishes from sibling tools like rt_check_auth, rt_check_tls, etc., which test different aspects.

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 limits applicability to HTTP/SSE transport ('Only applies to HTTP/SSE transport'), providing clear context. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the specificity is sufficient for correct selection.

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