Debug Access Token

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety. It adds valuable context beyond the annotations by specifying that it inspects the META_ACCESS_TOKEN from the MCP environment, and explicitly lists the output fields (type, expiry, permissions, app/user). No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact at three sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by a concrete use case, and a closing note that no arguments are needed. Every sentence contributes value and the structure is 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 read‑only tool with zero required arguments and a single optional parameter fully described in the schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and explicitly notes that it relies on the configured environment token. There is no output schema, but the description lists the information returned, which is sufficient.

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 single parameter response_format is fully documented in the schema with an enum and default, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add extra meaning about the parameter, but the schema already carries the full burden. Per the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate because the description adds nothing beyond the schema, but the schema itself is sufficient.

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 ('Inspects') and clearly states the resource (Meta access token) and the exact information it returns (type, expiry, permissions, associated app/user). It is easily distinguishable from all sibling tools, none of which are debug-dedicated, so there is no ambiguity.

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 states when to use the tool ('diagnosing permission denied errors or checking when a token expires'), giving clear context for its application. It also clarifies that no arguments are needed, which is helpful guidance. It doesn't mention when *not* to use it or list alternatives, but given the tool is unique and the use case is concrete, this is already strong guidance.

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