pc_check_auth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'returns fixes,' suggesting a non-destructive linting operation, but it does not disclose potential limitations, authentication requirements, or the exact format of the fixes. The behavior is reasonably clear but could be more detailed.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and scope. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple lint tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it explains what patterns are checked (graph.windows.net audience, ADAL, archived SDK) and that it returns fixes. It does not explain the return structure, but that is often implicit for linting tools.

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 single 'code' parameter has 0% schema description coverage. The description adds meaning by specifying that it is an 'auth or client snippet,' clarifying what type of code is expected. This compensates significantly for the lack of schema documentation.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: lint a Partner Center auth or client snippet for deprecated patterns. The verb 'lint' is specific to checking code for issues, and the resource is well-defined. It distinguishes from siblings such as pc_migrate_from_sdk (actual migration) and pc_auth_guidance (general guidance).

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 you have a snippet to check for deprecated patterns, but it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternative tools like pc_migrate_from_sdk or pc_auth_guidance for other scenarios.

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