check_coros_auth

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining the local TTL check, the possibility of stale tokens due to server-side revocation, and the exact implications of the returned fields. It also clearly states that the tool does not re-login or alter stored tokens, providing thorough behavioral disclosure.

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 moderately detailed but well-structured, starting with a clear statement of purpose and following with relevant caveats and details. Each sentence adds value, and the use of inline code for keys improves readability. It is not excessively verbose for the complexity involved.

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 diagnostic nature and the presence of an output schema, the description provides comprehensive context: it explains the default local-only behavior, the optional server verification, the meaning of `authenticated` and `expires_in_hours`, and edge cases like revocation. This is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role and limitations without additional documentation.

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 single parameter `verify_with_server` is fully described in the schema with details on behavior and return keys. The tool description adds context about the default local check and what the parameter modifies, but this is largely complementary to the schema rather than adding new meaning. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Check') and clearly identifies the resource ('valid Coros access tokens') and scope ('stored locally'). It distinguishes itself from sibling authentication tools by focusing on checking local storage rather than creating or managing tokens.

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 provides clear context for use: it's a local check that can optionally verify with the server, and it warns that a local 'authenticated' result doesn't guarantee server acceptance. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but the behavior is well-enough contextualized for an agent to decide when to call it.

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