tasks_login_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds further detail: it actively probes the token store and performs at most one /me round-trip to learn the UPN. The pending state behavior and payload fields are fully disclosed.

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 comprehensive but slightly verbose due to detailed AGENT_INSTRUCTIONS. However, every sentence adds value, and the purpose is clearly stated in the first sentence. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Given the availability of an output schema (context signal), the description need not explain return values. It fully covers the tool's behavior, states, and agent instructions, making it complete for an AI agent to use correctly.

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 schema coverage is 100%. According to the rubric, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter information, as there are none.

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 exactly what the tool does: return the current sign-in status for Microsoft 365. It enumerates the three possible states and their meanings, and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like tasks_login_begin by referencing it explicitly.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool and when to call alternatives: when status is 'none' the agent should call tasks_login_begin, and when 'pending' it should present the verification code and URL. It also clarifies that a signed_in token may exist from prior logins.

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