auth_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It lists the kinds of information returned (connection, auth, read-only, user), but does not explicitly state that the operation has no side effects or how it behaves when disconnected. This is adequate for a status tool but not comprehensive.

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 sentence with the core concept front-loaded ('Status of connection and login') followed by a compact list of reported states. Every word earns its place, and the line breaks improve readability.

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 simple zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers all relevant reported dimensions and implies a read-only nature. An explicit note that no state changes occur would be a minor enhancement, but nothing essential is missing.

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 and an empty properties object, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies.

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 resource (connection and login status) and enumerates the exact components: client connection, account authorization, read-only mode, and current user. This is specific enough to distinguish it from account tools like get_me.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_me, login_*, or logout. The word 'status' implies a checking use case, but no alternatives or exclusion conditions are mentioned.

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