sigma_get_tenant_scoped_info

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds valuable context about the underlying mechanism (RFC 8693 token exchange) and the specific endpoint called (/whoami). This goes beyond the annotation hints by explaining how the operation is performed and what 'scoped identity' means, which helps the agent anticipate behavior.

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 very concise, using two short sentences to convey the purpose and mechanism. It is front-loaded with the main action ('Demonstrate tenant token exchange') and wastes no words. Every sentence is purposeful.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects, and an output schema available), the description provides sufficient context about what the tool does and the steps involved. It does not describe return values, but that is covered by the output schema. The only weakness is the lack of explicit param mapping and usage exclusions, which are already captured in other dimensions.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate by explaining the tenant_org_id parameter, but it does not. The description mentions 'tenant-scoped' without explicitly linking it to the parameter or describing what the tenant_org_id represents, its format, or its role in the token exchange. The parameter remains under-documented.

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 a specific action: demonstrating tenant token exchange by calling /whoami through a tenant-scoped client. This distinguishes it from sigma_get_current_user (which likely uses the existing user context) by emphasizing the tenant-scoped token exchange. The word 'Demonstrate' introduces slight ambiguity about whether this is a utility or an example, but the core purpose is clear.

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 this tool is used to verify a tenant-scoped identity after token exchange, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like sigma_get_current_user or sigma_get_tenant. No when-not or alternative tools are mentioned, so usage context is only implied.

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