libcal_auth_status

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool checks a saved session and provides remediation if expired, but does not disclose the return format, whether any network call is made, or what happens with no saved session. The behavior is generally self-evident for a status check, but richer context would help.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is stated first, and the actionable recovery command follows immediately. Every word earns its place.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description is largely complete: it states what is checked and what to do if the session is expired. A minor gap is not describing what the tool returns, but the purpose sentence implies a validity result, and the recovery step covers the main downstream need.

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, so parameter semantics are trivially satisfied. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check whether') and a precise resource ('saved UNC LibCal login session') with an explicit outcome (valid vs expired). The name and description together clearly distinguish this auth-status tool from the sibling booking/availability tools.

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?

Clearly indicates when to use the tool: to verify saved session validity. It also gives an actionable alternative by telling the user to run 'npm run login' if expired. It doesn't enumerate when not to use it, but no sibling competes with this auth check, so the guidance is sufficient.

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