auth_diagnostics

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The words 'diagnostics' and 'determine' imply a read-only investigative action, which is helpful. However, it does not specify whether any side effects are possible, what the diagnostic output looks like, or whether it relies on existing session state.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action and the purpose immediately, and it does not repeat or contradict the schema.

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?

For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool, the description is mostly sufficient for selection and invocation: the agent knows what the tool is for and what it reports. But with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves the diagnostic output format and any operational caveats unspecified, so it is not fully 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?

The schema has zero properties, and the tool has no parameters, so the description has nothing to explain. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and nothing in the description is missing regarding arguments.

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 a specific verb ('Run') and clearly identifies the resource and outcome: authentication diagnostics that determine the current auth method and validity. It is easily distinguishable from the sibling tools, which all relate to deployment and application management.

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 the appropriate use case: run this when you need to know the current auth method or check auth validity. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the sibling tools are unrelated to authentication, so the usage context is reasonably clear.

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