get_login_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry full behavioral transparency. It does disclose that the tool refreshes the session, which is an important side effect beyond merely checking status. However, it does not explain what happens on invalid sessions, whether credentials are re-verified, or any rate limits, leaving gaps.

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 succinct sentences that front-load the primary action. Every word earns its place, and no irrelevant details are included. It is an example of efficient, well-structured writing.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity, the description leaves out critical details about the tool's output. There is no output schema, and the description does not state what the agent will receive (e.g., a boolean, status object, or updated session cookie). Additionally, no usage context is provided, so the description is not fully complete for an agent to confidently consume the result.

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, so the schema trivially covers all possible inputs. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Baseline 4 is appropriate given the lack of parameters.

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 identifies the tool as a session/credential status checker with a specific verb 'Check' and a distinct resource. The additional refresh action is disclosed, which differentiates it from the listed sibling tools that focus on content operations. Though 'app credentials status' is slightly vague, the tool's purpose is unambiguous.

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 invoke this tool, such as before other authenticated operations or as a health check. No alternatives are mentioned, nor any exclusions. This is a minimal description that does not help the agent decide between this and any other tool.

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