Debug Access Token

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

The description adds additional context beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint) by specifying what information the inspection reveals (type, expiry, permissions, app/user) and that it uses the META_ACCESS_TOKEN environment variable. This enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior without repeating annotation content.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is stated in the first sentence, followed by usage guidance and a note about no arguments. Every sentence earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple diagnostic tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and that it requires no arguments. The user is fully informed about the tool's functionality and expected output (type, expiry, permissions, app/user).

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 one optional parameter (response_format) with a clear description and enum. Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds 'no arguments needed', which reinforces that the parameter is optional but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states the tool inspects the Meta access token to show its type, expiry, permissions, and associated app/user. This specific verb ('inspects') and resource ('Meta access token') clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools which are primarily for creating, reading, updating, or deleting entities.

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 explicitly mentions it is useful for diagnosing 'permission denied' errors and checking when a token expires. It also notes that no arguments are needed, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives, which could further aid agent decision-making.

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