get_authentication_strength_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the summary categories and passkey/FIDO2 focus, but does not disclose scope (tenant-wide vs filtered), required permissions, or return shape; with annotations, this is moderate added 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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a parameterless summary tool, though it could have used the same space to clarify scope.

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 no output schema, the description carries more of the return-value burden. It identifies the summary dimensions but does not state tenant scope, timeframe, or the structure of the enterprise summary, leaving ambiguity relative to many authentication-related siblings.

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, so per calibration the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to add beyond the empty schema.

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 summarization task and names the dimensions: authentication strength (strong/mixed/weak) and passkey/FIDO2 adoption. It does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools such as get_authentication_methods_summary, list_users_with_weak_authentication, or list_users_with_passkey.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. The summary nature is implied by the tool name, but the sibling list contains many adjacent authentication tools and the description does not route the agent among them.

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