status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Check authentication status' implies a read-only operation that verifies authentication state, but it doesn't specify what constitutes 'status' (e.g., valid/invalid, token expiration, permissions), whether it requires any authentication itself, what happens on failure, or what format the response takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 'Check authentication status' is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple, parameterless tool and is front-loaded with the essential action. Every word earns its place in this minimal but complete phrase.

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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It states what the tool does but doesn't provide enough context about when to use it, what the output looks like, or behavioral characteristics. For a status-checking tool in an authentication context, more guidance about typical usage patterns and expected outcomes would be helpful, though the minimal nature of the tool makes this less critical than for complex operations.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the absence of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately doesn't mention any parameters. The baseline for 0 parameters with high schema coverage is 4, as the description correctly focuses on purpose rather than parameter details.

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 'Check authentication status' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('authentication status'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'connect' (establish connection) and 'disconnect' (terminate connection) by focusing on verification rather than connection management. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'start_workflow' which might involve authentication checks as part of a larger process.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't indicate whether this should be used before 'connect', after 'disconnect', or as a periodic verification during 'start_workflow'. There's no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or typical usage patterns, leaving the agent to infer context from tool names alone.

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