check_auth

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint: false, openWorldHint: true, destructiveHint: false. Description adds critical business logic beyond annotations: 'Normalize is FREE. Commit requires connection.' explaining the cost/auth implications. However, it doesn't explain why readOnlyHint is false despite 'check' typically implying read-only behavior, nor potential side effects.

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?

Structure is excellent: purpose statement upfront, followed by business rule, then clear conditional sections (USE/DO NOT). Despite length, every sentence serves differentiation or guidance. No repetition of structured metadata.

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?

Comprehensive for a zero-parameter tool with clear workflow integration. Minor gap: lacks description of return values (no output schema exists), though the intent of 'checking status' is reasonably inferable from the name and purpose.

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?

Tool accepts zero parameters (empty schema), warranting baseline score 4 per rubric. Schema coverage is trivially 100% for an empty object. No parameter clarification needed.

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?

Description opens with specific verb 'Check' and resource 'connection status', clearly scoped to 'committing ideas'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like normalize_idea and create_ticket by clarifying this validates commit capability, not normalization which works without auth.

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?

Contains explicit 'USE this tool when' and 'DO NOT use this tool when' sections with specific scenarios. Explicitly names sibling tools (normalize_idea, create_ticket) to clarify boundaries and provides concrete user utterance examples ('am I connected?', 'why a commit isn't working').

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