verify-login

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool checks authentication status but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like what 'status' includes (e.g., logged in/out, token validity), whether it requires network calls, or potential error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with authentication systems.

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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, achieving ideal conciseness.

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 complexity of authentication tools and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the check returns (e.g., boolean status, user details, error messages) or how it integrates with sibling tools. For a tool in this context, more detail is needed to guide effective use.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param details, which is appropriate, but it also doesn't compensate for any gaps since none exist. A baseline of 4 is given as the tool has no parameters to document.

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 states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('current Microsoft authentication status'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'login' or 'list-accounts', which prevents a perfect score.

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. With siblings like 'login', 'logout', and 'list-accounts', it's unclear if this should be used before authentication attempts, to verify session validity, or as a status check. No explicit when/when-not instructions are given.

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