auth_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the check operates via a local file (~/.grok/auth.json) and clarifies the OAuth type, implying a read-only operation. It could have added detail about return values or failure behavior, but for a simple auth status check, this is adequate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediate usage guidance. Every word earns its place; there is no verbosity or redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage, and the underlying mechanism. The sibling tools are all task-related, and this auth check is clearly positioned as a prerequisite, making it contextually 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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds context by referencing the specific auth file path, which is meaningful even though no parameters exist. There is no schema coverage issue since the schema is empty.

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 'Check' and the resource: whether Grok CLI is logged in via ~/.grok/auth.json. It specifies the exact file path and mentions subscription OAuth, making it easy to distinguish from the sibling task-related tools.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Call this before first use if unsure.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke this tool, which is especially useful given the sibling tools are all task-related and auth_status is a preliminary check.

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