iris_auth_status

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and it does reasonably by communicating that this is a read-only reporting operation returning identity and scopes. It does not mention side effects or whether an existing session is required, but the reporting verb strongly implies non-destructive introspection.

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?

A single sentence containing no filler. It front-loads the action and delimits exactly what the report will contain.

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 zero-parameter, read-only status checker with an output schema present, the description is fully sufficient: it tells the agent what the tool reports and implies no required setup. No important missing context is identifiable.

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 coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description contributes to semantics by listing the output dimensions (signed-in state, identity, scopes), which compensates for the lack of any exposed data.

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 names a specific verb ('Report'), a clear resource ('iris signed-in state'), and the exact information returned (whether signed in, which user, what scopes). It is clearly distinct from siblings like iris_login and iris_create_draft, which perform different operations.

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 when to use the tool — to inspect the current auth status — but does not state any exclusions nor explicitly contrast it with the login/draft siblings. An agent can infer the right use case, but the guidance is not made explicit.

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