authenticated-llm-agent

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

Discloses authentication gate (JWT, bcrypt), rejection of unauthenticated calls, and the specific LLM provider. No annotations provided, so description carries burden. Lacks details on rate limits, logging, or statefulness, but adequate for a simple gateway.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core concept, no wasted words.

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?

Minimally viable: explains authentication and basic operation, but lacks details on output format (e.g., does it return raw Gemini response? status codes?). No output schema to compensate.

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 100% for the single parameter. Description adds useful context: 'the same body you'd send as an A2A message', clarifying format beyond schema alone.

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?

Clear verb and resource: 'JWT-gated LLM gateway' immediately states what it does. Distinguishes from siblings by specifying authentication and the specific LLM backend (LangChain-on-Vertex Gemini).

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?

Implied usage: use when you need an authenticated LLM completion via JWT. No explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with siblings like 'authenticated-mcp-agent' or 'auth-token-service'.

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