trmnl_auth_status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by saying the credential is not revealed, but it does not describe what status values are returned, whether polling is expected, or how expired or canceled logins are represented.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It states the action and the key security behavior immediately.

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?

This is a simple read tool, but with no output schema and an undocumented required id parameter, the description should do more to explain the identifier and the expected status response. It also omits how this tool fits between trmnl_auth_start and trmnl_auth_cancel, so an agent is left with important gaps.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single required 'id' parameter, and the description does not explain what the id represents beyond indirectly implying it identifies a pending login. The pattern constraint exists in the schema, but the description adds no meaning about format, source, or expected identifier type.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Check a pending login.' It is clear that this is a status/read operation for a pending authentication attempt, though it does not explicitly name the sibling tools it differs from, such as trmnl_auth_start or trmnl_auth_cancel.

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 phrase 'pending login' implies this should be used after an authentication attempt has been started and before it is completed or canceled. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus trmnl_auth_start or trmnl_auth_cancel, leaving the workflow relationship to inference.

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