Get Environment Auth

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, and the description adds non-obvious behavior: secret values are always masked and the sentinel {configured:false} is returned when no auth is configured. It also notes the organization-context requirement, which is not inferable from the schema.

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?

Three short sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by return behavior and a usage prerequisite. Each sentence carries distinct information and there is no redundant text.

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?

For a simple getter with two parameters and annotations, the description is sufficient: it explains masking, the no-auth return shape, and the set_context prerequisite. Nothing needed to invoke correctly is missing, and no output schema is required to understand the return.

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%; both projectId and environmentId have meaningful descriptions. The tool description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, so it makes no extra contribution to 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 specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('environment-level authentication configuration'), and the owner ('an environment'). It is distinguishable from siblings like get_resolved_auth, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides clear context by specifying the prerequisite: organization context via set_context. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when to prefer this tool over others like get_resolved_auth.

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