coronium_check_token

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals that the tool checks the cached token, returns a boolean, and suggests action on invalid. Does not mention exceptions or edge cases, but adequately covers the essential behavior.

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 sentences: first states purpose and return type, second gives usage context and alternative. Front-loaded with purpose, no redundant or extra words.

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 one-parameter check tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage timing, return value, and fallback actions. It is complete enough for an agent to decide when and how to use it.

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?

Input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single optional parameter, describing it as an explicit token defaulting to cached. The description adds no new parameter details beyond referencing the cached token, which is already stated in the schema.

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?

Specific verb 'Verify' with resource 'cached token', clearly states the tool checks token validity and returns true/false. Distinguishes from login/logout by focusing on validation status.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (before a long agentic session) and provides a clear alternative if invalid (call coronium_login or rely on auto-login). This gives both usage context and fallback behavior.

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