auth_coverage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the tool detects auth guards (Clerk, NextAuth, Supabase, custom) and reports protected vs unprotected routes, but does not disclose potential side effects (none expected), permissions required, or whether it modifies files. The description is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences plus a code example, front-loading the purpose and key inputs. Every sentence earns its place: first sentence states purpose, second describes input, example shows usage. No superfluous information.

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 output schema, so the description should explain return values. It mentions 'reports protected vs unprotected routes' and an output format parameter, but does not describe the structure of the report (e.g., list of routes, statuses). Given the complexity and 4 parameters, the description is missing details about output shape, making it only minimally complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all parameters. The description adds an example call and clarifies that 'files' and 'middleware' are ignored when 'path' is provided. This adds meaning beyond the schema, but the description does not elaborate on each parameter beyond the example. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 analyzes authentication coverage across Next.js App Router routes, detecting auth guards and reporting protected vs unprotected routes. It specifies inputs (files array with route contents and middleware), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on general code scanning or security audits.

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 provides an example call and mentions that when path is provided, file contents are not needed, implying usage context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a full file-by-file scan is needed or when the project structure is complex.

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