flru_auth_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the tool is a read-only status check with no side effects, but it does not specify return values, error behavior, or whether it makes a network call. This is adequate for a simple check but leaves out some details one might expect.

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 sentence of eight words, with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the essential information and is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete: it states what is checked. However, it could be more explicit about the return type (e.g., a boolean) or any preconditions, but these are strongly implied by the wording. Sibling tool context further clarifies its role.

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 does not need to explain parameter meanings. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4; the description correctly focuses on the tool's purpose rather than on nonexistent inputs.

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 checks whether the current FL.ru session is authenticated, using the specific verb 'checks' and resource 'session authentication.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like flru_login, which performs authentication, and other tools that act on projects or conversations.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the purpose itself implies usage context: to verify authentication before other operations. It lacks any mention of alternatives or prerequisites, so it offers only implied usage.

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