oauth-status

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds value beyond these by stating it is 'Stdio only' and 'Never returns token values,' which are important behavioral details. While no edge cases or error scenarios are mentioned, these additions are sufficient given the tool's simplicity.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that front-load the main action. Every word serves a purpose: listing the function, adding the transport restriction, and stating the security guarantee. There is no redundant or unnecessary information, making it optimally concise.

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 simple read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality, transport constraint, and a key security behavior. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., structure of the list) or behavior when no tokens exist. Given the simplicity, this is a minor gap, so a score of 4 is reasonable.

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 no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. According to guidelines, the baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information, and it does not provide any beyond what is in the schema. Therefore, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 lists wikis with stored OAuth tokens, including scopes and expiry, using a specific verb ('Lists') and identifies the resource (wikis with token info). It also notes the transport constraint ('Stdio only') and security behavior ('Never returns token values'), which further clarifies the purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like oauth-logout.

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 for checking OAuth status but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., oauth-logout) or when not to use it. The mention of 'Stdio only' is a constraint, but it does not help the agent decide contextually. Thus, usage guidelines are implied rather than explicit.

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