portal_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns 'non-sensitive' data and is 'read-only,' which conveys safety and side-effect-free behavior. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements, error behavior, or what happens on failure. For a simple tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and scope. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary filler. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, an output schema is present, and the description states the purpose and the read-only nature, the description is largely complete. It could mention more about the 'supported read-only scope' or when to use it relative to siblings, but for a simple metadata tool, it is sufficient.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The rubric assigns a baseline of 4 for zero parameters. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed.

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 the tool 'Return non-sensitive portal metadata and the supported read-only scope.' This identifies a specific verb (Return), resource (portal metadata), and scope (read-only), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like initial_config, start_login, and session_status. The qualifier 'non-sensitive' adds precision.

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 implies usage: when you need portal metadata and supported read-only scope, this is the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. Sibling tools exist, but no differentiation guidance is provided.

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