crpt_check_auth

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

Although readOnlyHint=true is provided, the description adds important behavioral detail: it does not reveal secret values, only reports which variables are set. It also discloses the exact return JSON shape. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies safety behavior useful to an agent.

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 compact JSON snippet. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds the critical security caveat, and finally the return format. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 read-only check tool, the description covers the essential context: what it checks, what it does not do, and what the response looks like. The presence of an output schema covers return details, and annotations cover safety. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to use this tool 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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description cannot add parameter-level meaning because none exist. It does not explicitly state 'takes no arguments,' but the empty input schema already fully documents this, and the description focuses on the behavior instead.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether the required credentials are present in the environment.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like crpt_call_method or crpt_set_key, and it is not a tautology. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 as an environment credential pre-flight check, but it does not explicitly instruct when to use it versus alternatives or recommend calling it before other CRPT tools. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references, so usage context is only implied, not stated.

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