seed_get_access_token

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: it prompts for credentials interactively via the MCP client. With no annotations, this is helpful, but it omits what happens on success/failure, token expiration, or whether the token is returned or cached. Basic transparency is present but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It conveys the purpose and method efficiently.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional param, no output schema) and the description covers the essential context: you get a token by prompting for credentials. It lacks explicit connection to sibling tools, but given the simplicity, it is sufficiently complete for selection and invocation.

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 single parameter 'type' is fully described in the input schema with an enum and default, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Seed API access token'), and clarifies the mechanism ('prompting for credentials through the MCP client'). It clearly distinguishes this auth-focused tool from the data-operation siblings listed.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicit: the tool is for obtaining an API access token, which is presumably needed before using other Seed tools. However, the description does not state when to use it relative to alternatives or mention prerequisites like prior authentication.

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