test_tokens

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'test' but doesn't explain what the test entails (e.g., validation checks, error reporting, or performance testing), what happens on success/failure, or any side effects like rate limits. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 with a single sentence, 'Test multiple OAuth tokens,' which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of testing OAuth tokens (which may involve validation, error handling, or batch processing), the description is incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral details, it fails to provide enough context for an agent to understand the tool's full functionality and implications, especially for a tool that could involve sensitive token operations.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'tokens' parameter documented as 'OAuth tokens separated by commas. Up to 1000.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as token format or expected output. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 'Test multiple OAuth tokens' clearly states the action (test) and resource (OAuth tokens), but it's vague about what 'test' means—validation, verification, or functionality check. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'revoke_token' or 'set_token', which involve token management but with different purposes.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify if this is for debugging, batch validation, or a prerequisite for other operations, nor does it mention any prerequisites like token format or permissions. The lack of context makes it unclear when this tool is appropriate.

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