gflow_auth_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses non-interactivity, credit-free behavior, that it never starts interactive login, a possible Playwright/headless browser fallback, and a worst-case latency of ~45s. These are meaningful operational details an agent could not infer from the schema.

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 front-loaded with the core preflight purpose, followed by behavioral exceptions and timing. The issue reference is minor noise, and the repeated pre-generation call context is slightly redundant, but overall it is 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?

For an auth-status probe with an output schema available, the description covers the important operational context: timing, side effects, fallback behavior, and non-interactivity. The main completeness gap is the unexplained `profile` parameter.

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 single optional `profile` parameter has zero schema description coverage, and the description never explains what a profile represents or how it selects a session. An agent can omit it due to the default, but no real semantic guidance is added beyond the schema field name.

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 states a specific verb and resource: a non-interactive, credit-free Flow session probe. It distinguishes itself from generation siblings by framing the tool as an auth preflight rather than a generation action.

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 directs the agent to call this BEFORE a generation tool, especially before a long blocking generation call, to fail fast on expired auth. It does not name an alternative auth-checking tool, but the pre-generation timing is clear.

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