auth_status

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

Description indicates a read-only check with no destructive behavior, which aligns with expectations. However, lacking annotations, it does not mention other behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication prerequisites. Adequate for a simple status 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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with action verb 'Check', no extraneous information. Highly efficient.

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?

With 0 parameters and an existing output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and usage context. No additional details are necessary for a minimal status check 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 0 parameters, so baseline is 4. Description adds context about what is checked (status and method) beyond the empty schema, fulfilling the need.

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 clearly states the function: checking Azure authentication status and distinguishing between CLI or Service Principal method. It is specific and differentiates from sibling tools which focus on resource management rather than auth state.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like account_show or health_check. Sibling tools include several auth-related commands but no differentiation criteria are provided.

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