crpt_check_auth

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: it explicitly states no secret values are revealed, only which variables are set, and it documents the return shape. That is real value.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the security guarantee, then the return contract. No filler or redundancy; every sentence 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 preflight check with annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema already defined, the description is complete. It volunteers the return shape and the no-secrets guarantee, leaving nothing an agent would need before invoking it.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing further for the description to disambiguate about inputs.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Check whether the required credentials are present in the environment.' It is clearly distinct from the crpt_* operation tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings (e.g., crpt_set_key / crpt_use_cabinet), which is what a 5 would require.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated – an auth-check tool is self-evidently a preflight step, so an agent can infer it. But there is no explicit 'call this before X' guidance, no mention of when-not to use it, and no reference to any alternative tool for auth-related tasks.

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