Auth session status

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

Annotations already indicate read-only behavior (readOnlyHint=true). The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by specifying the exact artifact being checked (PASETO) and how it might be obtained (login tools or EREBRUS_BEARER_TOKEN fallback). No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence concisely conveys the tool's purpose and key behavioral detail. It is front-loaded with the action ('Show whether') and avoids any redundant or filler text.

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-only status tool, the description fully covers the necessary context: what is checked, where the token comes from, and the implied yes/no result. No output schema exists, but the description's wording sufficiently conveys expected behavior.

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, which sets a baseline of 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters and correctly focuses on the tool's purpose.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Show') and exact resource ('whether this MCP session has a user PASETO'). It distinguishes itself from sibling auth tools by focusing on session-level token presence, including the token source (login tools or EREBRUS_BEARER_TOKEN fallback).

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to check if the session holds a user PASETO. It implies usage for status verification but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of the top score.

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