vault_auth_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly states what is reported (user and token expiry) and implies it is a read-only status operation. It does not mention prerequisites like 'must be logged in' or error handling, but for a simple status tool this is acceptable.

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 delivers complete meaning without waste. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and adds no redundant details.

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 with no parameters, no output schema, and a simple status-check function, the description adequately covers the essential information: who and until when. It does not detail edge cases like unauthenticated state, but that is not critical for this simple tool.

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, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, the baseline for 0 params is 4; the description appropriately omits parameter details since none exist.

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 function: showing who is logged into Vault and the token expiration time. It uses a specific verb (status check) and resource (Vault), distinguishing it from sibling tools like argocd_auth_status, which clearly targets ArgoCD.

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 context is evident: this is for checking Vault authentication status, as opposed to login/logout or ArgoCD-related tools. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the intended use is clear from the description and sibling list.

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