Workboard Auth Result Tool

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description doesn't disclose what 'reporting' means behaviorally—whether it mutates internal auth state, what constitutes a valid outcome, or return semantics—leaving significant ambiguity for an auth-flow tool. With an output schema present, some burden is lifted, but the behavioral contract remains thin.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is perhaps too terse for the complexity of an auth-flow tool, but structurally it's efficient.

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 an auth-result tool with many auth-and-workflow siblings around it, the description leaves critical context unstated: the expected call sequence with workboard_auth_start_tool and workboard_auth_status_tool, what the outcome values mean, and any side effects. The output schema helps, but the description alone is insufficient for correct 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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed, consistent with the empty schema.

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?

States a verb ('Report') and a resource ('outcome of the most recent authorization redirect'), which conveys the general purpose. However, it is ambiguous whether this reports an external event's result, an intermediate auth state, or returns status data, and it doesn't distinguish itself clearly from siblings like workboard_auth_status_tool and workboard_auth_start_tool.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus workboard_auth_status_tool or workboard_auth_start_tool. The description says 'the most recent' redirect but doesn't explain the sequencing or conditions that make this the right tool.

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