evolute_auth_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that the tool never returns raw tokens and hedges with 'looks valid,' suggesting a heuristic check. But it does not disclose whether the call is read-only, whether it refreshes the session, or whether any side effects occur.

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 with no filler. The core purpose is stated first, and the security-relevant constraint 'Never returns raw tokens' is a valuable second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 status check with an output schema present, the description is mostly sufficient. It states what is checked and adds an important security constraint. It lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites, such as whether a session must already exist, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 the schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed because there is nothing to document.

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 identifies the resource (a session) and the condition (whether it looks valid), and the auth_status name distinguishes it from the vehicle/trip/charge siblings. However, it lacks a direct imperative verb like 'Checks' or 'Validates,' so the phrasing is a noun clause rather than a precise action statement.

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 is used to determine if a session is valid, and the warning 'Never returns raw tokens' hints that it should not be used for token retrieval. However, it never explicitly states when to use it versus the sibling tools or excludes alternatives, leaving the usage context to inference.

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