get-auth-status

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple field list by noting that token renewal is silent, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is side-effect-free or describe failure modes, leaving some room for interpretation.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the returned fields and ends with a specific use case. Every phrase earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete by enumerating the returned fields and the diagnostic scenario. It could add detail on data types or the not-authenticated case, but for diagnosing auth failures it is sufficient.

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 an empty input schema, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly needs to explain no parameters, and it adds no unrelated parameter information.

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 identifies what the tool returns—auth mode, signed-in account, client app id, decoded token scopes/roles, and token expiry—and ties it to a specific diagnostic purpose. Although it lacks an explicit verb, the tool name 'get-auth-status' plus the detailed field list make the function unmistakable and distinguish it from siblings like set-access-token.

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 explicitly states the intended use case: 'use to diagnose 401/403s and missing consent.' It provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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