Get Auth Scheme

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic purpose and fails to mention whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or what the response format is. This is a significant gap for a tool that returns sensitive admin configuration.

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 a single sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler 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?

Given the absence of any annotations, output schema, or parameter details, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what the 'auth scheme' entails (e.g., type, configuration details) or what the tool returns, leaving the agent to guess about the response structure. The simplicity of the tool does not excuse the lack of output documentation.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter-level details. Per calibration guidelines, 0 parameters merits a baseline of 4, and the description does not detract from that.

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 uses the specific verb 'inspect' and clearly identifies the resource as 'the active Node-RED admin auth scheme'. It distinguishes itself from sibling authentication tools like 'login' (which creates a session) and 'revoke' (which destroys one), making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 implies usage when needing to check the current auth scheme, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context such as requiring an active session.

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