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, but it only says 'nothing secret.' It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether it requires an active session, or what happens with invalid or expired tokens. The 'nothing secret' note is useful but far from enough for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the main action is front-loaded in the first word. The parenthetical '(nothing secret)' adds relevant behavioral information without bloating the text. It could arguably do more, but as conciseness goes it is efficient.

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 that the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description gives a reasonable gist: the result will describe a session's scope and libraries. However, it does not clarify what 'scope' means, whether the libraries are access permissions or just names, or what the return structure looks like. For a simple status tool this may be enough, but it leaves room for agent uncertainty.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and only one required parameter, session_token. The description calls it 'a session's scope' which loosely implies the token identifies the session, but it does not explain where the token comes from, its expected format, or how it should be obtained. For a single self-named parameter this is sufficient only for the most obvious inference.

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 the verb 'show' and the resource ('a session's scope and libraries'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It also distinguishes this from sibling auth actions like auth_login or auth_rotate and from list_libraries by focusing on session status rather than a stand-alone library listing. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from get_auth_help, leaving some ambiguity about overlap.

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 implies the tool is used when you need to inspect a session's scope and associated libraries, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives such as list_libraries or get_auth_help, nor does it state prerequisites like having a valid session_token. The usage guidance is adequate but only implicit.

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