cep_auth_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool reports on 'cached scopes' and 'OAuth credential status,' implying a read-only inspection of existing state. It does not explicitly state that it makes no changes or that it requires prior authentication, but the verb 'reports' strongly suggests a non-mutating operation.

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 two sentences: the first states the core function, the second provides usage boundaries. There is no redundant information or filler, making it concise 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?

This is a zero-parameter status tool with an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. It fully covers what the tool reports, the intended server scope, and how it relates to other status tools. Given the simplicity of the tool, the description is complete.

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, and the input schema is empty. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description correctly avoids discussing non-existent parameters. No parameter-level meaning is needed beyond the schema.

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 reports OAuth credential status and cached scopes for the CEP MCP server. The verb 'Reports' plus the specific resource and server scope fully define the tool's purpose. It also distinguishes this status tool from the one for the Google Workspace MCP server, differentiating it from potential siblings.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance: 'Use this tool only for the CEP MCP server; the Google Workspace MCP server has its own separate status tool.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions, including an alternative tool.

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