sso_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Check' implies a non-mutating read, which is a small signal, but nothing is said about required credentials, whether it makes a network call to the identity provider, what the status actually contains (configured vs. enabled vs. provider metadata), or how failures/absence of SSO are reported.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler — the resource and scope appear immediately. It is efficient, though it errs toward under-specification rather than maximum information density.

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?

Zero parameters keeps the calling contract trivial, but there is no output schema, so the description is the only place a reader could learn what 'status' means in the response — and it does not say. Adequate to call the tool, insufficient to interpret it.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed to perform the check.

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?

Specific verb ('Check') plus specific resource ('SSO/OIDC authentication status') with the scope limited to 'team vault access'. No sibling in the list performs an SSO status check, so the tool is functionally distinguishable, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with team_init or team_resolve.

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 'for team vault access' implies the context in which to reach for it, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g., team_init for configuring SSO). Usage must be inferred.

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