Pcloud Auth Status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the tool's behavior: it reports server-side credential status, and on failure, identifies what is missing and which tool fixes it. The verb 'Report' implies a non-mutating status check, though it does not explicitly state that no side effects occur.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the usage directive ('Call this first') is placed prominently. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The tool has no parameters and an output schema, so return values are already structured. The description covers the operation's essence, its role as the first step, and what diagnostic information it provides. Nothing an agent needs to use it correctly 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, so parameter semantics are not a concern. Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline 4; the description correctly focuses on behavior and output rather than parameter details.

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 ('Report whether') and a clear resource ('usable pCloud credential'), and its scope is distinct from sibling authentication tools like pcloud_auth_start and pcloud_auth_result. The phrase 'Call this first' further differentiates it as an initial status probe rather than an action tool.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this first.' It also explains what the tool will tell you if the server cannot reach pCloud, implying when to proceed with a fix. It does not name specific alternatives or provide when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls just short of a 5.

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