Check Auth & Fibrous Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and network profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context that open_fibx already returns this payload as its auth field, preventing redundant calls. It does not disclose what the session state looks like, what a failed health check returns, or partial-failure behavior when auth succeeds but Fibrous is down.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the capability and immediately followed by the routing rule to the alternative. Every clause carries information; the phrasing 'before a transactional tool you are calling yourself' is slightly convoluted but still decodable.

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?

This is a simple zero-required-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations, so the bar is modest and the routing guidance is sufficient for call selection. However, with no output schema, the agent has no idea what the returned session state or health status looks like, which is the main thing the description leaves unexplained.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single chain parameter carries its own enum and description, so the schema does the heavy lifting and a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about the parameter — in particular it does not say that chain affects only the Fibrous health portion and not the auth result, which would have been a valuable disambiguation.

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 names a specific verb and two concrete resources: authentication status and Fibrous API health, which matches the title and the chain-scoped parameter. It also names the sibling open_fibx, so the agent can separate this from the broader session tool. It does not distinguish itself from the other status siblings (get_connect_status, get_tx_status), which is why it is not a 5.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: call standalone only when the session state is needed and nothing else, or as a pre-check before a transactional tool the caller invokes directly. It also supplies the when-not-to-use condition by pointing to open_fibx, which already returns this in its auth field.

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