mf_auth_callback

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets an access token,' implying a read operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., token format, expiration). For a security-sensitive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 in Japanese that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential 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 the tool's complexity (authentication-related, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., security implications, error responses), usage context relative to siblings, and output information. For a tool that likely returns a token, the absence of an output schema means the description should compensate by explaining the return value, which it doesn't.

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 description mentions 'using an authentication code,' which aligns with the single parameter 'code' in the input schema. Since schema description coverage is 100% (the schema fully documents the parameter), the description adds minimal value beyond what's already in the structured data. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but not enhanced parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'get an access token using an authentication code.' It specifies the verb ('get') and resource ('access token'), and mentions the required input ('authentication code'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'mf_auth_start' or 'mf_refresh_token', which likely handle different authentication steps or token renewal.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., after 'mf_auth_start'), exclusions, or how it relates to siblings like 'mf_refresh_token' for token renewal. Without such context, an agent might struggle to select the correct tool in a workflow.

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