spraay_auth_session

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false) already indicate non-read-only and non-idempotent. The description adds value by disclosing persistence in Supabase, cost per use, and the token format. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand side effects and costs.

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 only three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, token usage, and cost/persistence. It is front-loaded with the most critical information, with zero wasted words.

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 output schema exists (not shown in description but indicated by context signals), the description covers all essential aspects: creation, scoping, TTL, token return, persistence, and cost. It is fully adequate for a tool of this complexity.

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% with clear descriptions for all three parameters (address, ttlSeconds, permissions). The description does not add extra parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline expectation without further enhancement.

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 verb 'create' and the resource 'authenticated session', with specifics about scoped permissions, TTL, and token format (spr_...). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like spraay_auth_verify, which handles verification.

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 important context: data persistence in Supabase and a cost of $0.005 USDC, implying it is a paid operation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., spraay_auth_verify). The cost hint guides usage, but explicit when-not or alternatives are missing.

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