thm_check_auth

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but the tool is a zero-parameter read-only check, so risk is inherently low. It discloses that it reports whether the MCP server is connected under the caller's account, but says nothing about failure modes, expiry implications, or required credentials.

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?

Two short sentences that lead with the core purpose. The second sentence partially restates the first, but it is far from wasteful and reads well.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not enumerate return fields, and a zero-param auth check is simple enough that little else is required. Only the lack of any when-to-use framing leaves a small gap.

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, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; baseline 4 applies. Schema description coverage is also 100%, leaving no gap to compensate for.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it checks TryHackMe authentication status and session validity. This is unambiguously distinct from the sibling content-retrieval tools (thm_search_rooms, thm_get_room_overview, etc.), though it makes no explicit effort to contrast itself with them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus other options — for example, whether it should be run before other calls or after an auth failure. The description only restates what the tool does, not the conditions that select it.

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