lc_auth_status

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

The description discloses that secrets are not exposed, which is a safety guarantee. However, with no annotations, it does not mention any other behavioral traits like read-only nature, rate limits, or whether it triggers any cached state changes. The safety note adds value but is not comprehensive.

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 very short (one sentence) with no wasted words. It front-loads the key action ('Show') followed by what is shown. While efficient, it could benefit from a bit more structure, but it is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 output schema and minimal parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output format, the meaning of the credential mode and JWT status, or how the oid parameter affects results. An agent would need to infer or guess.

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 only parameter (oid) has a schema coverage of 0% and the description does not explain its purpose, format, or effect. The agent has no way to know whether oid is needed or what it does, making this parameter effectively undocumented.

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 shows 'credential mode and cached JWT status' and explicitly notes it does not expose secrets, which is a distinct purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like lc_auth_refresh or lc_auth_whoami, which could cause confusion.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for checking auth status without side effects, but there is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' advice, leaving the agent to guess.

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