drive_auth_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds deeper behavioral context: it explains the underlying CLI has no dedicated status command, that probing by resolving /my-files makes a real (lightweight) call, and that it does not expose the account email. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent anticipate side effects and limitations.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose/return, implementation detail (probe via /my-files), and usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundancy with schema or annotations.

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 0-parameter tool with strong annotations and an explicit return description, this is fully complete. It covers what the tool does, how it works, when to use it, and a key limitation (no email exposure). No important context is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds no parameter detail because none exists. Per the rubric, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4, and the description appropriately avoids inventing parameters.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Check whether the Proton Drive CLI has an active authenticated session.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by explaining it is the auth-status check, and it also specifies the return shape ({authenticated: boolean}). This is unambiguous and unique among the listed drive_* 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: 'Use before any file operation when you need to confirm the session is valid — all other drive_* tools (except drive_version) require authentication.' This states when to use it and implies when not to (before drive_version). It also notes the CLI lacks a dedicated status command, so the probing behavior is explained.

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