icp_auth_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. It only states that it checks authentication status, but does not mention whether it is read-only, requires authentication, makes network calls, or what happens when unauthenticated. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There is no wasted wording or unnecessary repetition.

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?

The description is too minimal for a tool with no output schema and no annotations. It does not explain what the check returns (e.g., boolean, principal, expiration time), nor does it provide any context about the authentication model. A simple tool might be adequately described with a bit more detail about the result format or typical use case.

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, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage (vacuously). Since there are no parameters to describe, the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The baseline 4 for 0-parameter tools applies.

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 action (check) and the resource (authentication status), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like icp_login and icp_logout by focusing on status rather than state changes. However, it lacks detail on what exactly constitutes 'authentication status' (e.g., logged-in state, principal), which is a minor gap.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_principal_id or checking specific session details. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios. The usage is only implied by the tool name and description.

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