Ping / Check Auth Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description is not burdened with basic safety. However, the description adds value by specifying that the tool returns session info including user details, company ID, and permissions, which is not in the annotations. No contradictions.

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 three sentences: the first states purpose, the second gives usage guidance, and the third clarifies return values. It is front-loaded and efficient with no extraneous words.

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 tool with no parameters, rich annotations, and a simple operation, the description covers purpose, usage, and return values. Although there is no output schema, the description adequately describes what is returned. The context is complete.

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?

There are no parameters (0 params, schema coverage 100%). The description correctly omits parameter info since none exist. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to add anything beyond what the schema provides.

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 states that the tool determines login status and retrieves session properties from Machship. It uses specific verbs ('determines', 'retrieves') and identifies the resource (Machship). Among the many sibling tools, this is uniquely a ping/auth check, so it is well-distinguished.

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 says 'Use this to verify authentication is working and to get the current user/company context.' This provides clear guidance on when to use it, and there is no need for when-not because no sibling tool serves the same purpose.

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