auth_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavior: if not authenticated, it returns a login_portal card and suggests next steps. It doesn't describe the success-case response format, but for a simple status check this is reasonably transparent.

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 sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core function, and the second provides a conditional outcome and actionable next step. Every phrase 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 nearly complete: it defines the purpose, gives the negative-case output, and points to recovery actions. The only gap is the lack of detail on what the success response looks like, though 'whether authenticated' implies a simple status response.

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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on behavior rather than parameter details, and there is no schema information to repeat or clarify.

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+resource ('Show whether this MCP process is authenticated') and clearly distinguishes this status-check tool from sibling auth actions like login/connect/logout. It also adds a useful conditional outcome, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 (check auth status) and provides direct guidance for the non-authenticated case by naming alternatives (call connect/login or open the URL). It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement, but the context is clear enough for the tool's simplicity.

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