auth_tokeninfo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and 'current access token' signals that the tool relies on the caller's authentication context. It does not, however, disclose behavior for invalid or expired tokens, or the exact response structure beyond the listed field names.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, then lists the relevant fields efficiently.

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 introspection tool, the description is largely complete: it says what the tool does, what context it uses, and what fields to expect. The only missing elements are notes about failure modes or authentication prerequisites, which are partially implied by the phrase 'current access token.'

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema is unambiguous and the baseline is 4. The description adds useful context by naming the token identity fields the agent can expect, reducing uncertainty about the return payload despite the absence of an output schema.

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 information') and a precise resource ('current access token'), then enumerates the expected fields: userId, account, name, roles, clientId, scopes. This clearly distinguishes it from the user, client, network, and device CRUD siblings, which operate on different resources.

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 phrase 'current access token' implies the use case: inspect details about the token authenticating the current request. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over alternatives like user_get or client_get, or what edge cases should route elsewhere.

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