tenki_auth_status

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive; the description goes further by revealing a live identity probe, clarifying that it does not log in, and explicitly stating it never returns the token. This is valuable safety-relevant behavior beyond the structured hints.

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?

Three sentences each add necessary information: what it reports, when to call it, and what it deliberately avoids doing. The most important information is front-loaded, with no filler or 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?

Given zero parameters, an output schema, and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description covers the essentials: what is checked, how the check happens, when to invoke it, and explicit safety boundaries. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 the schema documents that fully, so there is nothing for the description to explain. With no parameters, the baseline of 4 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 names a specific verb ('Report'), a clear resource ('Tenki credential'), and the exact facts it returns (presence, kind, endpoint). It also implicitly distinguishes this from the sibling tenki_whoami by focusing on credential state rather than identity.

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 trigger conditions: call it first after auth errors, or when it is the only available tool because no credential is configured. It does not mention a when-not-to-use case or an alternative tool, but this tool is a diagnostic entry point rather than one option among competing siblings.

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