get_auths

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safe/read-only nature is covered. The description adds the useful scoping detail that it returns all auth details for the current instance, but does not disclose return shape, errors, or auth-source specifics.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word contributes to defining scope ('all', 'current instance'). It is appropriately sized for a parameterless read-only tool.

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 zero-parameter tool with safety annotations, the description is close to sufficient, but no output schema exists and 'auth details' is left imprecise, especially given the closely related sibling tools. An agent might still wonder exactly which authentication or authorization data will be returned.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, there are no parameter meanings for the description to add. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies here.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('all auth details'), and a scope ('current instance'), so it conveys the tool's core function beyond the name. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_me, get_acls, or get_acls_by_principal, which also touch auth-related data.

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?

There is no guidance about when to prefer get_auths over the many auth-related siblings, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned. The only hint, 'for current instance', gives some context but does not say how this differs from get_acls or get_me.

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