get_status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the non-mutating nature is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the underlying route (GET /api/auth/status) and nothing about what the status reflects (token validity, session state) or how failures are surfaced; with annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but thin.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words. The appended "[READ] GET /api/auth/status" restates what the annotations and name already imply, which is minor redundancy rather than bloat.

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, no-output-schema tool, the definition is functional but omits the one thing an agent would want: what the returned status actually represents. Read-only safety is covered by annotations, so the gap is moderate rather than severe.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Schema coverage is 100% and the empty object is self-explanatory.

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?

States a clear verb and resource ("Get the status of the authentication"), which is enough to distinguish it from data-heavy siblings like get_stats or get_subscription_info_by_short_uuid. It does not, however, contrast itself against near-neighbours such as get_remnawave_health or get_api_token_scopes, so the boundary is left to inference.

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?

There is no statement of when this tool should be used, no preconditions (e.g. whether it requires an existing token), and no named alternative. The agent must guess that this is the auth-check probe rather than a general health check.

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