Check Crave login session

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context by specifying the credential sources queried (CLI keychain or CRAVEUP_ACCESS_TOKEN), which is useful auth-related behavior beyond what the annotations provide. It does not cover failure behavior, but this is a minor gap given the output schema exists.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action, names the resource, and includes the key credential context. Every part contributes meaning and there is no redundant wording.

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, read-only verification tool with robust annotations and a declared output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what is verified and where credentials come from, and the output schema covers the return shape, so nothing essential is missing.

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 there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is adequate.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Verify', and names the exact resource: the MCP server's ability to read a craveup login session. It also identifies the credential sources (CLI keychain or CRAVEUP_ACCESS_TOKEN), making the tool's purpose unmistakable and clearly distinct from auth-flow siblings like start_crave_auth and complete_crave_auth.

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 states what the tool does but does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives, and it does not mention that this should be used to check an existing session before starting a new auth flow. The usage context is implied by the action 'Verify' and the sibling tool names, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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