auth_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It describes a read operation, which is non-destructive, but does not disclose potential behaviors like rate limits, authentication requirements, or logging. Basic transparency is adequate.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words.

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 no output schema, the description hints at the return content. It covers key aspects of the status, but might lack details on other possible fields. Still, it is sufficiently complete for a simple 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?

There are no parameters, so the description need not elaborate. It adds meaning by specifying what the output covers (active source, preview, onboarding options), which aids understanding.

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 clearly states it shows the current API key status for the session, listing specific aspects like active source, preview, and onboarding options. It distinguishes this read-only tool from sibling tools that modify the key.

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 use for checking status but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like auth_set_api_key. The context of siblings helps, but no direct when/to-not-to-use advice.

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