sac_diagnose_token

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains that the tool bypasses the cache and returns a decoded payload (scopes, etc.), and never returns the raw token. However, potential side effects (e.g., token invalidation) or prerequisites (e.g., authentication) are not mentioned. This is a moderate gap.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core action and output. Every word is meaningful; 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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what it does, what it returns (and what it doesn't return), and a typical use case. It could mention error conditions or required permissions, but for a diagnostic tool it is largely complete.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter meaning but doesn't need to. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 mints a fresh OAuth token and reports its decoded JWT payload. The verb 'mint' and resource 'OAuth token' are specific. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (none of which diagnose tokens).

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 says to use this tool to verify OAuth client scope change propagation. It provides a clear use case. It does not explicitly exclude other uses or mention alternatives, but no other tool serves this purpose.

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