List auth methods

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavior itself. It does specify the output scope (whether password/OTP auth is enabled and which OAuth2 providers are configured), which clarifies the read-only, config-inspection nature. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or what the exact response structure will be, leaving some burden unmet.

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 front-loads the action ('List the available authentication methods') and then specifies the exact contents after a colon. Every clause contributes meaning and there is no filler.

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 one-parameter, read-style list tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the resource, the parameter, and the returned content. It would be slightly stronger if it explicitly stated that it reads global collection auth settings rather than per-user external auths (a potential sibling overlap), but the current wording is sufficient for most agents to invoke it correctly.

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 only parameter, 'collection', is already fully described in the schema as 'Auth collection (default 'users').' The description adds only the phrase 'for an auth collection,' which does not go beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies; the description provides no extra parameter-level detail.

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 'List' with a concrete resource ('authentication methods for an auth collection') and enumerates exactly what is included (password/OTP enabled status, OAuth2 providers). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like auth_with_password or auth_with_otp, which perform authentication actions rather than list configuration. No ambiguity remains about what the tool does.

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 no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as auth_info or list_external_auths. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations. The intended use is only implied by the name and purpose, so an agent must infer when this is the right call.

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