auth

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions authentication and JWT access, but fails to detail critical aspects such as required permissions, rate limits, error handling, or the format of the JWT response. For a security-sensitive tool, this lack of transparency is a significant gap, though it does not contradict any 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for conciseness in tool descriptions.

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 complexity of authentication (a critical, security-related operation) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error cases, and the structure of the JWT response, which are essential for safe and effective use. The high schema coverage does not compensate for these missing contextual elements.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the parameters (token and force_staging). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying authentication with a token, which is already covered by the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage, but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 states a clear purpose: 'Authenticate with a cldkctl token to get JWT access', specifying the action (authenticate) and resource (cldkctl token/JWT). It distinguishes from siblings like 'cldkctl_login' by focusing on token-based authentication rather than general login, but does not explicitly contrast with all sibling tools, such as 'cldkctl_token_regenerate' or 'cldkctl_token_update', which might involve token management.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies usage for authentication, but it does not specify prerequisites (e.g., needing a token first), when to choose this over 'cldkctl_login', or any exclusions. This leaves the agent without clear context for tool selection among the many sibling tools.

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