linda_auth_status

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

No annotations provided, but the description adequately discloses that the tool is a read-only status check, mentions network access requirements, and does not hint at any destructive behavior. Could be slightly improved by noting idempotency.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, no filler. Every sentence adds value.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It also provides context about IP-based access and the sibling tool for cookie setting, covering all necessary information for an agent to invoke it 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?

No parameters exist, which matches the baseline of 4. The description adds meaning beyond the empty schema by explaining what the tool checks without needing input.

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 verb 'prüft' (checks) and the resource: reachability of linda.lindeverlag.at and cookie status. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the optional use of linda_set_cookie for manual cookie setting.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (to check status) and suggests an alternative action (manually set cookies via linda_set_cookie). Also clarifies IP-based access and no login required.

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