codebreaker_me

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses conditional behavior: it returns authenticated=true with username/role on success, and authenticated=false with instructions on failure. This adds useful context about the tool's response logic, though it does not describe potential edge cases or rate limits.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no fluff. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second explains the return behavior.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description is the only source of return information. It fully covers both outcomes (authenticated true/false) and explains what the response contains, making it complete for this simple tool.

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, and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter complexity. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies, and the description does not need to add parameter details. It correctly references the session cookie as an implicit context, not a parameter.

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 specific verb 'Report' and resource 'authenticated codebreaker.xyz user', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like codebreaker_get_profile or codebreaker_list_problems. It immediately states the core function without ambiguity.

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 for checking authentication status but does not explicitly say when to use it or mention alternatives. It lacks explicit when-to-use guidance, such as 'use this to verify the session', and does not exclude other tools.

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