check_credentials_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It states that the tool inspects arguments ('provided in the arguments'), which is a useful scoping detail. However, it does not disclose return value format, error behavior, or that it performs no network call. This is a minimal but non-misleading disclosure, adequate for a simple check.

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, front-loaded sentence that contains no filler words. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 two-parameter check with no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It identifies the tool's purpose and parameters. It does not explicitly mention return values or usage context, but given the low complexity, the information provided is sufficient for an agent to select the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names both parameters (token, cookie) and clarifies they are Plone credentials, adding meaning beyond the raw schema. It does not explain format or precedence, but the essential semantics are covered.

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 tool's function: checking whether Plone credentials (token or cookie) are provided. It uses a specific verb ('checks') and resource ('Plone credentials'), and the parameter names make it easily distinguishable from sibling tools, which focus on content and file operations.

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 usage: to verify credential presence before making authenticated requests. No explicit alternatives are given, but no sibling tool performs a similar check, so differentiation is inherent. The context is clear, though it could be stronger with an explicit when-to-use recommendation.

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