gpu_auth_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two genuinely useful behaviors: mock data are test fixtures rather than a live account, and there is no automatic rotation. It omits whether this is a read-only operation, what happens on missing/invalid credentials, and whether the snapshot is cached.

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?

Very short with no padding, but it is a set of disconnected fragments opening with a bare noun phrase rather than a front-loaded statement of purpose. The literal backticks around ``account`` read as formatting noise.

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 output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but for a two-parameter auth tool with 0% schema coverage and a near-identical sibling, the description leaves the core question — what this returns and when to prefer it over l2kc_auth_status — unanswered.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It only gestures at ``account`` ("reads that account only") and says nothing about ``provider``, accepted value formats, or what the null defaults mean.

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?

"Auth snapshots" is a noun fragment that essentially restates the name gpu_auth_status; it never says what the tool returns (credentials? token validity? provider identity?) in a verb+resource form. Nothing distinguishes it from the sibling l2kc_auth_status, which appears to be the same operation for another backend.

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 when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives such as l2kc_auth_status, gpu_list_accounts, or gpu_doctor. "``account`` reads that account only" scopes a parameter but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right call.

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