switch_check_auth

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key trait: a single GET, no POST, i.e. non-mutating and safe to call unauthenticated. It also names the diagnostic state it surfaces, but omits any note on rate limits, error behavior, or possible failure modes from a probing request.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler. The scope-defining clause ('without logging in') is front-loaded and the behavior ('Makes one GET, no POST') is stated compactly at the end.

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 zero-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool the description covers purpose and the key safety/behavior trait, which is enough to call it correctly. Minor gap: no indication of what the reported values look like or what happens if the probe fails.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; baseline for a no-param schema is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed.

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?

States a specific verb (probe) and resource (switch auth) and enumerates exactly what is reported: session model, auth variant, login mode, breaker/cooldown state. This clearly separates it from siblings like switch_login, switch_logout, and the several switch_get_* readers, which do not probe auth state.

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 phrase 'without logging in' implies the use case — determine the auth/login model before authenticating — and rules out the login flow, but it never names an alternative tool or states an explicit precondition/dependency on switch_login. Clear context, no explicit when-not routing.

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