check_auth

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly states the return format for both success ({ok, expires_at, seconds_remaining, user_id}) and failure ({ok: false, error}) cases and specifies the condition that triggers failure (missing or expired JWT). It does not mention side effects, but this is a read-only verification operation by nature.

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 front-loads the action and resource, then states the return contract. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 the tool's simplicity, zero parameters, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient detail: it explains the verification target and the exact return shape in both success and error scenarios. It could add guidance on what to do when ok is false, but that is not strictly necessary for invoking the tool correctly.

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, so the schema carries no semantics. The description correctly focuses on behavior and return values, which is all that is needed. Baseline 4 applies for a zero-parameter 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 uses a specific verb ('Verify') and names the exact resources (JWT and lastRequestId in .env). It clearly distinguishes this tool from all 21 siblings, none of which relate to authentication, making its role 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 this tool should be used to check whether authentication is still valid, but it never explicitly states when to call it, e.g., as a preflight before authenticated requests, or what to do if the JWT is expired. No alternatives are mentioned, though no sibling auth tool exists.

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