diadoc_check_auth

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

The description explicitly states that it does NOT reveal secret values and only reports which variables are set. This adds meaningful safety-relevant behavior beyond the readOnlyHint annotation and also describes the exact return shape, giving the agent full transparency about what the call will do.

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 concise and structured with three short sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, adds an important behavioral safeguard, and then gives the exact JSON return shape, with no unnecessary content.

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 tool, the description is complete. It explains purpose, safety behavior, and return structure. The output schema and annotations further support this, leaving no important gap for an agent to invoke it 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?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description focuses on the output and non-revealing behavior, which is appropriate in the absence of parameters.

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 a specific action: checking whether required credentials are present in the environment. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like diadoc_set_key or diadoc_call_method by focusing on credential presence verification, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly implies the tool is a read-only preflight check for credential presence. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but its context is clear enough for an agent to understand when this check is appropriate.

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