auth_status

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits: it never returns token values, and it clarifies that an expired token is refreshed automatically if a refresh token is stored. This goes beyond the annotations (which are absent) and provides critical safety and operational context 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded: it states the core purpose in the first sentence, then adds clarifying details about token freshness and security. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool reports, clarifies the distinction between stored credentials and token freshness, and explicitly states that token values are never returned. An agent has all the information needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 takes no parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (empty properties). The description adds value by explaining what the tool reports, which is more than the schema alone provides. Since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description fully compensates for any potential ambiguity.

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 reports the active authentication mode and whether login credentials are stored, distinguishing it from other tools in the sibling list. It uses a specific verb ('report') and resource ('authentication mode', 'stored login credentials'), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 when to use this tool: when checking authentication status or credential storage. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of sibling tools (e.g., worksection_login, worksection_logout) makes the usage context clear. A brief mention of when not to use it would improve this dimension.

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