ChurchTools status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by enumerating the concrete data surfaced (validity, login state, user, version, build, site name), which is meaningful disclosure given there is no output schema. It doesn't state whether authentication is required to call it, which is the one remaining behavioral gap.

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 with no wasted words; the most decision-relevant information (configuration validity and login state) is front-loaded ahead of the version/build metadata.

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 diagnostic with no output schema, the description adequately covers what comes back. It is only slightly short of complete because it doesn't indicate whether login is a precondition, which matters for a tool that reports login state.

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 there is nothing to document and the baseline is 4. Coverage is 100% by definition and the description correctly introduces no phantom parameter discussion.

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 ('Shows') plus an enumerated set of resources: config validity, login state, logged-in user, version, build, and site name. That is far more concrete than a tautology and lets an agent distinguish it from data-fetching siblings like ct_get_person or ct_list_events. It does not explicitly contrast itself with ct_login, which is the one sibling an agent might confuse it with.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. Notably, 'login state' overlaps conceptually with the ct_login sibling, and the description never clarifies whether this tool is the read-only way to check authentication versus actually logging in. The agent must infer the diagnostic purpose entirely.

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