uoft_auth_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: saved cookies are checked without opening a window, a saved cookie is not proof of a valid session, and last_verified is historical rather than an expiry — all of which shape how the agent interprets results.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the parameter behavior and output caveats. Every sentence adds distinct value; none restates the name or schema.

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 one-parameter, non-destructive status read with no output schema, the description covers enough: scope of the read, refresh behavior, and the interpretation caveat for last_verified. It could say a bit more about what fields the status response contains for an agent to act on, but the essentials are present.

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 single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the meaning — and it does, explaining that refresh=True re-checks both services against saved cookies with no login window. It does not describe the default (refresh=false) behavior explicitly, leaving one small gap.

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 and resource: 'Get connection and login progress.' It also scopes what is NOT returned ('without exposing credentials or student records'), which helps separate it from data-returning siblings like get_course_details. It never names an alternative tool explicitly, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

It states a concrete use condition: 'refresh=True checks both services using saved cookies; it never opens a login window.' This tells the agent when to set the flag and clarifies that this tool is not the login path (uoft_login is). No explicit when-not guidance or named alternative is given, so it stops short of a 5.

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