Check Authorization Status

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

The description implies a read-only operation ('check auth status') and appropriate usage context. While no annotations exist, the behavioral intent is clear. Could explicitly state no side effects, but the check nature is transparent enough.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Each sentence adds value: when to use, when to avoid, and scope. Could be slightly tighter, but overall 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 no parameters and an output schema present, the description adequately covers usage guidelines and context. It specifies the limited domain (Dida365 MCP authorization) and avoids over-explaining return values.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed. The baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the description provides usage context that compensates for any potential ambiguity.

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 tool checks authorization status and specifies when to use it (user asking about authorization, deciding if protected operations can proceed). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_auth_url and revoke_auth by focusing on status checking.

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?

Explicitly provides conditions for use (user asks about authorization, unclear status before protected operations) and when to avoid (if status already known in current turn). Also restricts scope to Dida365 MCP authorization context.

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