ariel_auth_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate the safety profile. It adds a little context about what data is returned (handle, DID, profile info, rate limits), but does not describe error behavior, response format, or whether authentication is required. With annotations covering the main safety aspects, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every phrase adds information about the tool's scope, and it is immediately readable.

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 check with annotations already declaring safety, the description covers the core purpose and the kinds of data returned. The main gap is that "profile info" is vague and the return payload is not described, but the simplicity of the tool makes this a minor omission.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description enriches the context by naming the specific data points returned, which is useful even though there is nothing to explain about parameters.

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 states a clear verb ("Check") and resource (Bluesky authentication state) plus specific data points like handle, DID, profile info, and rate limits. It is easy to understand what the tool does, though "profile info" is slightly ambiguous about whose profile is meant. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like ariel_get_profile, but the auth-state focus is distinct enough.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ariel_auth_logout or ariel_get_profile. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate, so the agent must infer usage purely from the verb.

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