workbench-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a read-only operation (implied by 'Return'), it protects sensitive data ('without exposing the raw token'), and it describes the return structure in detail. It doesn't mention rate limits, caching behavior, or error conditions, but provides substantial behavioral context for a status-checking tool.

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 perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a clear Returns section that documents the output structure. Every sentence earns its place - the first establishes purpose and security boundary, the second documents return values. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 this is a simple status-checking tool with 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema (implied by the detailed Returns section), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and important behavioral constraints (not exposing tokens). For this level of complexity, no additional information is needed.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline would be 4 even with no parameter information in the description. The description correctly doesn't waste space discussing non-existent parameters, which is appropriate for this parameterless tool.

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 the tool's purpose with specific verb ('Return') and resource ('current session status'), and distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing it doesn't expose the raw token. It explicitly differentiates from auth_clear_session, auth_start_session, and auth_switch_user by focusing on status checking rather than session management.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Return the current session status without exposing the raw token'), which implicitly suggests it's for checking authentication state rather than modifying it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools for different authentication needs.

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