apiauth_status

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. The verb 'Show' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or data sources. For a zero-parameter status tool this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single, concise sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema.

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 description is minimal and adequate for a zero-parameter tool, but it does not clarify what 'configuration' entails or how it relates to the sibling tools. An agent might need additional context to decide when to call this versus apiauth_probe or apiauth_matrix.

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, so the schema trivially covers all inputs. Per the baseline rule for zero parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate since there is nothing to explain.

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 states a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('API auth test configuration'), making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like apiauth_probe or apiauth_matrix, which could have overlapping purposes.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the siblings. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or conditions that would select this tool over apiauth_probe or apiauth_matrix.

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