Proton Drive authentication status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds that two distinct things are verified (installation and authentication), which is useful, but it says nothing about the result shape or failure modes.

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 with zero filler. The action and its two checked conditions come first, and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 one-parameter status probe this is nearly complete, and no output schema exists to explain return values. The only gap is that the description does not hint at what the status result looks like (e.g., boolean vs. diagnostic text) for the agent to act on.

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 (response_format) is fully documented in the schema with an enum and default, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is the expected baseline when schema coverage is 100%.

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 ('checks') and resource ('proton-drive CLI'), and the qualifier 'installed and authenticated' pins the exact scope. It is distinguishable from proton_drive_auth_login by its read-only nature, but the description never names that sibling to make the contrast explicit.

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 explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative. Usage is only implied: check this before invoking drive operations that need auth. No when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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