get_oauth_redirect_reference

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns example URIs, doc links, and hints, implying it is a read-only informational tool. However, it lacks explicit statements about side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise, consisting of two short sentences. The first sentence clearly identifies the tool's purpose, and the second enumerates the return contents. No extraneous words or redundant information.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and return content (example URIs, doc links, hints). It provides enough context for a simple informational tool. Minor improvement would be specifying the response format, but it is still mostly 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?

The input schema has one parameter 'params' which is an empty object, already well-described in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, a score of 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?

The title and description clearly state the tool returns OAuth redirect URI references, including example URIs and documentation links. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_pcm_authorize_url and finish_google_oauth by being a reference resource rather than an action tool.

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 implies usage when setting up PCM and needing redirect URI examples, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_pcm_authorize_url or finish_google_oauth. No when-not-to-use instructions are given.

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