auth_token_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full safety burden and does so: it declares read-only behavior and explicitly denies the four mutation capabilities an agent might otherwise assume (create, refresh, revoke, manage). It does not cover failure behavior for an already-expired or insufficiently-scoped token, which is the main remaining 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the usage mode, then the payload, then the negative boundaries. No filler and nothing an agent must read twice.

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 one-optional-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies enough: what is inspected, what is returned conceptually, and that nothing is mutated. Only the sibling overlap with auth_whoami keeps it from being fully self-sufficient for tool selection.

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 100% for the single optional 'fields' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description gestures at the field set (owner, expiration, permissions) but adds no detail on syntax, defaults, or the 'all' keyword beyond what the schema already states.

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 names a specific verb ('inspect') and a precise resource ('the configured Trello token'), and enumerates the inspected attributes (owner, expiration, permissions). It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling auth_whoami, which an agent would reasonably see as an overlapping identity 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?

'Use as a read-only credential diagnostic' gives an explicit usage context, and the closing clause ('does not create, refresh, revoke, or manage tokens') sharply bounds when not to reach for it. It stops short of naming an alternative, so the auth_whoami vs auth_token_info choice is left to inference.

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