Authentication Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Check'. It adds meaningful context by enumerating the specific items returned (logged-in user, scopes, server version), which goes beyond the annotation. No contradiction with annotations.

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 neatly packed into two sentences: the first lists the checked items, the second gives a usage recommendation. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool is conceptually simple (no parameters, read-only) and the description lists the key return fields, which is adequate for an agent to decide whether to call it. It does not describe output format or error behavior, but given its simplicity and the fact that annotations cover safety, it is sufficiently complete.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics because there are none 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 states a specific verb 'Check' and lists the exact resources (authentication status, logged-in user, configured todo list, granted scopes, server version), making the tool's purpose unmistakable and clearly distinguishing it from sibling login/logout tools.

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 explicitly recommends this as a good first tool when diagnosing issues or understanding the setup, giving clear when-to-use context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the sibling context (login/logout) implies this is the pre-check before actions.

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