Connection + authentication status. Call this FIRST. Unauthenticated sessions can still park a website (batch tools) and start email sign-up — the response tells you exactly how.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It successfully discloses that unauthenticated sessions still permit website parking and email sign-up, and that the response tells the caller exactly how to proceed. This provides meaningful behavioral context beyond a bare status-check description.
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: the first instantly identifies the tool's role, and the second adds valuable operational context. Every word earns its place, and no redundant or filler content is present.
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?
Given the zero-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what this tool reports, when to call it, and a behavioral note about unauthenticated sessions. It could slightly expand on what the response looks like, but the pointer to 'the response tells you exactly how' is a pragmatic and sufficient signal.
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 semantic burden for the description to carry. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is solid because the description has nothing to add and omitting parameter details is correct.
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 this is a connection and authentication status check, and further establishes its role by directing the user to 'Call this FIRST.' This differentiates it from sibling login/status tools by framing it as the entry-point status for the entire system.
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 explicit 'Call this FIRST' gives clear when-to-use guidance. It also provides contextual information about what is possible in unauthenticated sessions, giving the agent useful caveats, though it does not directly name alternative tools or specify when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes: batch start/file/end are clearly separated, as are signup, login, and template pulling. However, yetty_claim_status and yetty_login_status both check statuses (of parked upload vs email login) and could be confused without careful reading, though their descriptions clearly differentiate them.
All tools share the 'yetty_' prefix and use snake_case, but the pattern varies: some are verb_noun (batch_start, batch_file, pull_template), others are noun (status, claim_status, authoring_guide). While readable and consistent in prefix, the lack of a uniform verb_noun structure is a minor deviation.
10 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range. Each tool corresponds to a necessary step in the workflow (parking files, approving, authenticating, pulling templates, and checking status), with no redundant or superfluous additions.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle from parking a batch to owner approval and post-authentication access, plus template retrieval. The main gap is lack of explicit cancellation or resend-email tools, but the flow seems self-consistent and agents can likely work around minor omissions.
