affiliate_webgains_verify_auth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape ({ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}) and indicates a minimal endpoint call. It does not mention potential side effects, rate limits, or detailed error behavior, but for a verification tool this is adequate and generally transparent.

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 sentences, each with clear value: purpose, when to use, and return format. No filler or redundancy; the most critical information is front-loaded.

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?

This is a simple no-parameter auth verification tool. The description covers purpose, usage triggers, alternative/complementary tools, and the exact return format. It is fully self-sufficient even without annotations or an 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema confirms this with an empty properties object. The description adds no parameter details because none exist. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 states a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('configured credentials for Webgains') and explains it calls a minimal authenticated endpoint. It distinguishes from sibling verify_auth tools by naming the network and from other tools by focusing on auth validity.

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 lists when to use this tool ('at the start of a session, after rotating keys, or when another operation returns an auth error') and suggests pairing with affiliate_run_diagnostic for a full health check, implying when it is not sufficient alone.

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