vyntryx_login_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds the meaningful extra context that a negative result is an expected outcome requiring an out-of-band terminal login, which tells the agent not to treat it as an error. It does not mention the return payload's shape, but an output schema exists to cover that.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the only branch that matters (not logged in). Nothing is redundant with the name, schema, or annotations.

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 zero-parameter read with annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, failure mode, and remediation. The only omission is any hint about ordering relative to the scan tools, which would have made it fully self-sufficient.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter surface for the description to clarify or neglect.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Show whether this connector is logged in to Vyntryx, and as whom'), going beyond the name to say that identity as well as boolean state is returned. No sibling tool does authentication inspection, so the boundary is unambiguous.

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 supplies an actionable remediation path ('the user must run `vyntryx-mcp login` in a terminal') but never states when an agent should call this versus proceeding straight to scan/finding tools, nor that it should be checked before other operations that require auth. Usage is implied by the logged-out branch rather than stated.

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