login_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core behavior (checking connection status) and implies it is non-mutating by directing unconnected users to call login separately. However, it does not describe the return value format, whether the result is a simple boolean, or any potential side effects, which leaves some behavioral uncertainty.

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 zero wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds usage timing and the alternative action, front-loading the most important information.

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, simple status-checking tool, the description covers the when and the conditional next step. The only gap is the absence of explicit return-value documentation, but the description's conditional language implies the output is testable enough for an 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?

There are zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for tools with no 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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and a clear resource ('whether Microsoft To Do is connected'), which precisely distinguishes it from sibling tools like login and logout. It clearly establishes itself as a status/readiness check for the task 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?

The phrase 'Use before task tools' explicitly tells the agent when to invoke this tool. The follow-up 'if not connected, call login' provides a clear conditional branch and names the alternative tool, leaving no ambiguity about subsequent actions.

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