Workboard Auth Status Tool

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description usefully adds that the tool performs a live verification via GET /user (an external call with latency), reports token storage location and active auth mode, and returns remediation guidance. It does not discuss caching, expiry timing, or failure modes in detail, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and the 'Call this first' directive. Every sentence carries distinct information: purpose, ordering, returned facts, and remediation.

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 status probe with an output schema already present, the description covers everything an agent needs: when to call it, what it inspects, and what to do on failure. Return-value enumeration is slightly redundant with the output schema but harmless.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no argument surface for the description to clarify. It correctly spends no words on parameters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Report whether this server currently holds a usable WorkBoard credential.' The scope (auth mode, token location, existence, live verification) is concrete. It never names the nearby auth siblings (workboard_auth_start_tool, workboard_auth_result_tool), so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

'Call this first' is an explicit ordering directive an agent can act on immediately, and 'If it is not usable, it says which tool fixes it' routes the agent to the remedy path. Both when-to-use and the fallback behavior are given, leaving nothing to inference.

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