loremotion_auth_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It honestly discloses the heuristic nature of the check ('appears') and the two reportable states, implying a read-only status probe. However, it doesn't disclose edge behaviors such as what happens when no session exists, whether any network/auth call is made, or error modes.

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?

A single 18-word sentence with zero filler. The action verb is front-loaded, the subject and scope are precise, and the expected binary outcome is stated. Every word earns its place.

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 tool of this simplicity — no parameters, no annotations, no output schema — the description is largely sufficient: it names what is checked and what the report will contain ('persistent or anonymous'). It could add what to do when anonymous or what the exact return shape is, but those are minor for a status probe.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain beyond the baseline. The empty schema covers 100% of parameters trivially, and per the rubric 0 params earns a baseline of 4.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource pair ('Check whether the current LoreMotion browser session appears signed in') and specifies the exact output ('persistent or anonymous'). The purpose is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like loremotion_generate_video and loremotion_download_video, which are about content operations, not session state.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The intended context is inferable — verifying session state before auth-requiring operations — and the sibling tools have no overlap, so exclusions aren't strictly needed, but the description never states when an agent should reach for this tool.

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