Get Resolved Auth

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

Annotations only mark the tool as readOnly; the description adds meaningful behavior: secrets are not returned, inheritance resolution spans case/suite/environment/project, and project context is required. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 sentences with no filler: purpose and scope first, then secret-handling warning, then use case and prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

All invocation-relevant information is present: required params, optional environment, prerequisite, and what the result conveys. There is no output schema, but the description explains what is shown and what is redacted; exact return shape is not necessary to call it correctly.

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 already documents entityId, entityType, and environmentId. The description adds contextual framing about inheritance and project default but no new parameter-level detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Show') and names a precise resource: the resolved auth for a test suite or test case after inheritance, including its source. This clearly distinguishes it from raw environment auth tools like get_environment_auth.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Use this before debugging a 401 by hand.' It also states a prerequisite ('Requires project context'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the use case is clear enough.

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