auth

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior fully. It covers multiple modes (set, check, OAuth, logout) but does not detail side effects such as persistent storage or network calls. The examples are helpful but the description could be more explicit about underlying actions.

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 extremely concise, using code examples to convey behavior efficiently. Every line adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the overall purpose.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description covers key usage scenarios adequately. It could mention error handling or synchronization behavior, but for a credential management tool it's sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 0%, yet the description adds rich meaning to both parameters via examples. It clarifies that server_id_or_var can be an env var name or server ID, and value can be a token or 'logout', which is far beyond the bare 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 clearly specifies the tool's purpose: checking or setting credentials. Examples differentiate between env var and OAuth operations, and sibling tools (auto, call, etc.) are unrelated, so it stands out.

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 provides explicit usage patterns via examples (e.g., auth('GITHUB_TOKEN', 'ghp_...') for saving, auth('server-id') for OAuth). It implies when to use, but lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance, which is acceptable for a dedicated auth tool.

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