auth_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool checks authentication and token expiry, implying a read-only status check. However, it does not explicitly disclose side effects, whether it makes network calls, or whether it requires prior authentication. The behavioral traits are partially disclosed but not fully.

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 is front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word is meaningful and there is no redundancy or fluff. It is optimally sized for a simple status check tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides the essential information: it checks auth status and token expiry. However, it does not specify the return format (e.g., boolean, timestamp) or whether the token expiry is a timestamp or relative time. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent deciding how to parse the result.

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 and the schema is empty (100% coverage). The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific details because none exist. It appropriately explains the purpose without needing to document parameters.

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 verb 'Check' and the resource 'connector is authenticated with Jobber', plus the additional detail of token expiration. It is distinct from siblings like 'authenticate' (which performs auth) and 'logout' (which terminates it). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 usage is implied: use this when you need to know authentication status or token expiry. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It does not mention that it is a read-only operation or that it does not trigger authentication.

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