List Auth Reverse Proxy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at a trust requirement ('trusted reverse proxy header') but says nothing about what happens on success (session cookie? token issued?), what happens if the header is absent or untrusted, or whether a pre-existing session is replaced. For a security-sensitive authentication operation this is a significant gap.

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 efficient, though that same brevity leaves the behavioral gaps noted above.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, so the description is the only source of context — yet it omits return behavior, failure modes, and prerequisites (proxy trust configuration). Incomplete for an authentication endpoint.

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 zero parameters the baseline is 4, and the description actually earns it by explaining where the input comes from: the username arrives via a reverse proxy header rather than the request body. That resolves the obvious question of why the schema is empty.

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 concrete action ('authenticate a user using a username forwarded by a trusted reverse proxy header'), but it clashes with the tool name and title, which both say 'list'. An agent reading only the name expects an enumeration endpoint, so the verb mismatch undermines clarity. It also does not differentiate itself from the many auth siblings such as create_auth_token or list_auth_oauth.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative, despite the sibling list containing numerous auth entry points (create_auth_token, create_auth_refresh, create_auth_logout, list_auth_oauth). The agent must infer that this path applies only in reverse-proxy deployments.

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