get_service_token

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the env-var fallback behavior, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about token lifetime, required permissions, or whether the call has side effects on the project.

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 short sentences with the action stated first and the parameter fallback second; nothing is padded. It is efficient, though extremely terse for an auth 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema this covers the basics, but it omits what the returned JWT is valid for and how long it lasts, which an agent needs to use the result correctly.

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% and the single parameter's description already states it is optional when IADEV_API_KEY is set. The description's fallback note largely duplicates that, adding no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource: exchanging an API Key for a technical JWT. It is understandable on its own, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'login' tool, which plausibly serves a similar authentication purpose.

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?

It gives one conditional rule (fall back to IADEV_API_KEY when apiKey is omitted), which is useful usage context. However, it never states when to call this instead of 'login' or what preconditions apply, so selection among siblings 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.