wafle_auth_me

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the exact response shape (`{ ok: true, type: 'master' | 'store', store_slug?, scopes? }`) and clarifying its scope (admin key, not user auth). This is good context for an otherwise simple read tool.

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 tightly written sentences: the main purpose, a usage scenario, and a critical limitation. No redundancy or filler. The key 'Do NOT use' warning is front and center where it matters.

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 no-parameter, read-only diagnostic tool, the description fully covers purpose, usage, expected output shape, and exclusions. With no output schema, the description compensates by documenting the return object. Sibling tools are numerous, but this tool's scope is simple and completely specified.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is 100% covered by 'No parameters.' Per the baseline for 0-param tools, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description adds no parameter details because there are none, but it does not need to.

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 returns information about the configured wafle admin key for the MCP server, with the specific verb 'Return information about'. This distinguishes it from siblings like wafle_users_me (user info) and wafle_auth_keys_create/list (key management).

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use it ('to verify the server is correctly authenticated before running other tools, or to debug a 401 error') and when NOT to use it ('Do NOT use this to authenticate end-user requests'), even pointing to the separate magic-link auth. This is exemplary guidance.

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