auth_path

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds value by disclosing the 'without overclaiming' philosophy and the specific fallback behavior (matched:false with suggestedNext). It does not contradict annotations. Minor gaps: unclear behavior when multiple parameters are provided.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Efficient and easy to parse.

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?

With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to detail returns, but it does cover the fallback. However, given 5 optional parameters and sibling tools, more context on parameter interactions and when to choose this over other tools would improve completeness.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions only three of five parameters (route, file, feature) with no details on their meaning or constraints. missing semantics for projectId and projectRef.

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 it is an 'Answer tool for auth questions' that 'trace likely auth boundaries for a route, file, or feature', specifying the verb and resources. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cross_search by describing the fallback behavior of returning matched:false with a suggestedNext for cross_search instead of throwing.

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 tells when to use (for auth questions about a route, file, or feature) and implies when not (if no exact match, use cross_search). It also mentions that the tool's non-throwing behavior is beneficial for batches and agent workflows. However, it does not explicitly exclude other sibling tools like route_trace.

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