iaas_retrieve_auth_token

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, consistent with a POST login endpoint. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond annotations: the returned token must be sent as `Authorization: Bearer {token}` on subsequent calls. It does not cover token lifetime or failure behavior, but it is not contradictory.

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 opening sentence is duplicated verbatim, wasting space in an otherwise short description. The header-format detail is useful and front-loaded after that, but the redundancy costs it.

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?

With a nested required body, a required refreshToken, and no output schema, the description should say more about the returned token (expiry/lifetime, what the response contains). It covers how to use the token but leaves the acquisition prerequisites (where a UI refresh token comes from) and token validity unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 100%, so refreshToken ("obtained from the UI") and apiVersion are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as where the UI-supplied refresh token comes from in practice or whether apiVersion affects the response. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries this burden.

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 ("Retrieve AuthToken") plus a scope qualifier ("for local csp users"). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from closely related siblings such as identity_get_access_token_with_refresh_token, identity_post_login, or provider_get_token.

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 only implied: it is for local CSP users, and the second sentence explains what to do with the token afterward. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over the identity_* or provider_get_token alternatives, and no prerequisites (e.g., that a refresh token from the UI must already exist).

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