sso_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what information is returned but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or has no side effects. The 'Enterprise feature' hint adds some transparency about access restrictions.

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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second lists the return fields. Efficient use of words without unnecessary details.

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 the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns. However, it does not explicitly mention that this is a read-only operation, which would enhance completeness for an enterprise admin tool.

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, so the description need not add parameter information. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate as there is no schema information to supplement.

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 'Check' and the resource 'SSO configuration status', and lists specific return fields (configured, protocol, issuer, allowed domains, role mapping). This distinguishes it from related sibling tools like configure_sso, sso_exchange_code, and sso_login_url.

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 notes 'Enterprise feature', which implies intended audience but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like configure_sso. No when-not-to-use or context about prerequisites.

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