Lint auth code for retired patterns

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses crucial behavioral traits: 'Read-only, offline, deterministic pattern matching: the snippet is not executed, nothing is sent anywhere, and no code is modified.' It also explains output behavior ('A clean snippet returns findings: [] with clean: true') and the limitation ('Detection is regex-based, so a clean result is not a guarantee of correctness').

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 well-structured and each sentence earns its place: purpose, usage, alternatives, safety guarantees, output format, and a caveat. It is front-loaded with the core action and tapers into additional context, with no wasted words.

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 single-parameter linting tool with a detailed schema, clear annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what, when, how, safety, output expectations, and limitations. Nothing essential is missing.

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 schema already covers 100% of parameter information with a rich description (any language, partial snippet fine, case-insensitive, secrets not transmitted). The tool description adds little beyond that, mentioning 'snippet' in context but not introducing new parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Scan') and resource ('Partner Center auth or client code snippet for retired and deprecated patterns'), listing exact patterns (graph.windows.net, ADAL, archived .NET SDK, AzureAD/MSOnline modules). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming pc_auth_guidance and pc_migrate_from_sdk.

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?

It provides clear usage context: 'Use this to triage existing code before or after a 401.' It also names alternatives with specific guidance: 'For guidance on what to build instead, use pc_auth_guidance; to translate archived SDK calls into REST, use pc_migrate_from_sdk.'

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