meta debug token

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying that it inspects the 'current' token and lists the details it reports (validity, expiration, scopes), which annotations do not convey. No contradictions.

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, no filler. The core function is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the use case completes the second. Every word earns its place.

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 diagnostic tool with an output schema present and safety already disclosed via annotations, the description covers the purpose, the specific data inspected, and the common usage scenario. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 is empty with 100% coverage, so all parameters are already fully described (none exist). The description correctly makes no parameter claims, and the baseline of 4 applies for zero-parameter tools.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') with a concrete resource ('access token') and enumerates the exact aspects checked (validity, expiration, granted scopes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like meta_health_check and the many get_* tools, which target business assets or system health rather than token state.

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 phrase 'Useful for diagnosing auth issues' provides clear context for when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the token-specific scope makes those exclusions largely implicit among the siblings.

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