list_available_authentication

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states that it lists all available types with short descriptions, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly disclose safety or prerequisites. The example adds domain context but not additional behavioral 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?

The first sentence is a clear front-loaded purpose statement. The following context and example are relevant but slightly expand the length. Overall, it is efficient and every sentence serves a purpose.

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 zero-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and provides usage context. The example enriches understanding. Return values are not described, but the output schema covers that.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description correctly omits parameter details. It instead explains the purpose and usage of authentication types, which provides useful context. 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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'authentication types' with a short description of each. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_available_backends and get_authentication_info.

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 provides relevant context: authentication types secure endpoints and are attached via the authentication parameter, with a concrete example. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives (e.g., get_authentication_info) but the listing vs. specific info distinction is implied.

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