auth_status

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the meaningful behavior: this is a status query whose result is one of three enumerated states, including the non-obvious intermediate device-code state. It omits whether the call is side-effect free or whether polling is expected while waiting.

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?

One front-loaded sentence, no filler, and the three possible states are listed in a natural reading order.

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, no-output-schema status tool this is close to sufficient: it names the possible return states, which is the main thing an agent needs. It could go further by saying what action each state implies (e.g., call login when signed out).

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 the baseline of 4 applies; the description correctly adds nothing to interpret.

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?

States a specific verb ('Report') and resource (auth/signed-in state), and enumerates the three states it distinguishes. It is clearly distinct from login/logout by nature, though it never names those siblings to reinforce the contrast.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should check state before calling authenticated tools or after initiating login. There is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of login/logout alternatives, and no guidance on what to do with the 'waiting for a device code sign-in' state.

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