diadoc_check_auth

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is partly covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it explicitly does not reveal secret values and only reports which variables are set, which tells the agent the output is safe to log or surface.

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 lines: purpose first, the security caveat second, return shape last. Every sentence carries information and there is no filler.

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 no-argument check tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. The only soft gap is that it doesn't say which credentials/variables are considered 'required' or where they come from, though the returned 'required' array largely covers this.

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, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly adds nothing about inputs because there are none.

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 (check) and resource (required credentials in the environment), and scopes it clearly against siblings like diadoc_set_key, which mutate credentials rather than inspect them. An agent can tell instantly this is a read-only preflight check.

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 purpose implies it is a preflight check before calling authenticated methods, but the description never says when to run it, when it can be skipped, or how it relates to diadoc_set_key / cabinet selection. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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