check_auth

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 implies a read-only operation via 'report' and describes return type (dict with bools). However, it does not explicitly state safety (no side effects, no authentication required) or behavior under different session states. The return info is helpful, but additional behavioral context (e.g., 'does not modify session') would improve transparency for an agent.

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 precisely communicate purpose, return values, and usage hint. No extraneous text, and key information is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, meeting the 'earn its place' criterion.

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 low complexity (no parameters, simple boolean check) and presence of an output schema (likely detailing the dict fields), the description sufficiently covers return values and purpose. The diagnostic hint further contextualizes usage. No gaps are apparent for an agent to correctly invoke this tool.

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?

Input schema has no parameters and coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter meaning, which is appropriate. Baseline score of 3 applies since the schema fully describes the absence of parameters and the description does not need to compensate further.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'report' and resource 'browser session logged in to X', clearly stating its function. It lists return fields ('authenticated', 'has_session_cookies'), making intent unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'login' and 'login_with_credentials' which perform authentication actions rather than diagnostics.

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?

Description explicitly advises 'Use this to diagnose empty results', providing a clear use case. While it does not list exclusions or alternative tools, the fine-grained siblings (e.g., 'get_profile', 'get_tweet') are obviously different, and the diagnostic purpose is well communicated. A slightly stronger exclusion would clarify when not to use it, but the guidance is adequate for correct selection.

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