okta-oauth-reuse-proof

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool makes two read-only UserInfo calls and publishes a token fingerprint, clarifying non-destructive behavior. However, lacks details on error conditions, side effects, or what 'publish' means.

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 that is highly concise and front-loaded. Every word contributes meaning, no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (demonstrating token reuse with two parameters and no output schema), the description provides a basic understanding but lacks details on return format, error handling, and prerequisites. Adequate for a lab tool but not fully comprehensive.

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?

Only 50% of parameters have schema descriptions (tenantConfirmation). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema for either parameter. It does not explain how 'authorized' or 'tenantConfirmation' relate to the token reuse demonstration.

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?

Description clearly states the tool demonstrates bearer-token reuse with two read-only UserInfo calls and publishes a SHA-256 token fingerprint. It uses specific verbs and resources, differentiating from sibling tools like okta-oauth-login or userinfo.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The 'AUTHORIZED LAB' prefix implies lab use but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions.

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