Auth Status

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

The description adds a valuable disclosure beyond the annotations: the response will not expose the session token. However, the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, hinting at possible side effects (e.g., session validation or refresh), while 'Report whether' frames the call as a pure query; this tension is left unresolved. Not a hard contradition, but the side-effect potential is undisclosed.

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?

A single 16-word sentence, front-loaded with the action, with neither padding nor wasted words. Every element — the resource, the validity criteria, and the token-safety disclaimer — earns its place.

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?

Adequate for a zero-required-param status check: purpose and token-safety are clear, and destructiveHint=false in the annotations carries the safety profile. But with no output schema, the description never hints at the return shape, and the existence of fields/output_mode parameters (summary/full/raw) implies structured output that 'Report whether' does not account for. Behavior when no session exists is also unspecified.

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 description contains no parameter information; the schema already documents fields and output_mode in detail, giving 67% coverage. The critical gap is `validate` (boolean, default true), which is undocumented in both schema and description — an agent cannot determine whether validate=false skips network validation or merely changes the reported result. The description could have closed this gap but does not.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Report whether this deployment has a usable, currently-valid Monarch session.' The qualifier 'without exposing the session token' adds meaningful scope. It clearly differentiates from the sibling auth_* tools (auth_create_session, auth_save_session, auth_load_session, auth_login), which create, persist, load, or authenticate rather than report status.

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 wording 'Report whether' implies a passive status-check use case, but the description never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over alternatives or what to do when no valid session exists (e.g., route to auth_login or auth_create_session). No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, so the agent must infer usage from the verb alone.

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