Get Auth Matrix

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the tool's detection limits (frontend auth wrappers won't be detected) and the module-drilldown behavior for large codebases. It does not cover return format (no output schema), but this is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: first states the purpose, second describes output scope, third gives a scaling tip, fourth warns about applicability limits. Front-loaded with the core purpose and 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 no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool does, its scope, its limitations, and how to use its parameters. It also provides behavioral context (detection gaps, module drilldown) that compensates for the lack of output schema. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters clearly, including enum-like values for 'layer' and multi-project mode for 'project'. The description does not dwell on parameter syntax but does explain the practical use of the 'module' parameter ('drill into a specific module/directory'), adding meaningful context beyond the schema's generic description. Baseline 3 is exceeded slightly, though it could more explicitly mention when to use 'layer' or 'project'.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Audit authentication coverage.' It then states exactly what the tool shows (routes/controllers requiring auth, inconsistencies like DB access without auth checks), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_account_status or find_exposure_leaks.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: most useful for backend codebases with middleware-based auth, and names an alternative (module parameter) for large codebases. It also states a clear exclusion: frontend frameworks (React, Vue) handle auth via component wrappers, which this tool won't detect. This is textbook when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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