gflow_auth_status

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals non-interactive behavior, credit-free execution, async queue context, possible Playwright headless browser fallback, and a ~45s worst-case network delay. This is unusually rich and honest disclosure.

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?

Four sentences, each adding distinct value: core purpose, usage timing and rationale, an important caveat about interactive login, and a performance bound. The information is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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?

The output schema can cover return values, and the description thoroughly covers behavior, timing, and fail-fast usage. However, the single 'profile' parameter is left undocumented, which is a small but real gap for non-default configurations.

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 one optional 'profile' parameter with a default but no description, and the tool description never mentions it. With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain what values profile accepts or what the default means; it does not.

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's purpose: a non-interactive, credit-free Flow session probe called before generation tools to fail fast on expired auth. It identifies the resource (Flow session) and the action (auth status probe), and distinguishes it from sibling generation 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?

It explicitly instructs when to call the tool ('BEFORE a generation tool') and explains why (async queue delays auth failure). It also states what it never does ('Never starts an interactive login flow'), giving the agent a clear boundary for when not to rely on it.

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