Check Auth Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond restating the check action. It does not disclose what the output looks like or whether a network call is made, but the annotations cover the safety profile adequately.

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, concise sentence that conveys the full purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 tool is simple with no parameters, and no output schema exists. The description says it checks credential configuration but does not specify the return value (e.g., boolean or status object), nor does it provide troubleshooting context. This is a clear gap for such a tool, though the simplicity keeps the score near baseline.

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 is trivially complete and the description need not explain any parameter semantics. Baseline 4 applies as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and a clear resource ('if iCloud credentials are configured correctly'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which explicitly address authentication or credential validation.

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 implies usage when credential configuration needs verification, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide context like 'use before authenticated operations.' No exclusions are given, but the simple purpose allows reasonable inference.

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