canva_get_auth_status

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly communicates that this is a non-mutating status check and goes beyond the tool name by specifying that it validates token validity and active permissions. This gives the agent meaningful information about what the tool inspects.

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 efficient sentence that states the tool's purpose and the specific aspects it verifies. There is no redundant or filler content.

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-parameter diagnostic tool, the description adequately explains what is checked, but there is no output schema and no mention of the return format or how the auth status result is represented. An agent could call it correctly but is left guessing about the response shape.

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, so there is no parameter behavior to document. The schema coverage is 100% trivially, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning because none exists.

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 uses a specific verb ('Verifica') and a clear resource (Canva connection state), and explicitly enumerates what is checked: connection status, token validity, and active permissions. This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which are all operational actions rather than auth diagnostics.

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?

Usage context is implied: an agent can infer that this tool should be called to verify authentication state before performing Canva operations. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use it vs alternatives or whether it should be routinely called before other tools.

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