klas_auth_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool does not expose passwords, which is a meaningful safety trait for an agent. However, it doesn't disclose whether the tool performs a live network check versus reading cached state, or what failure modes exist. The single safety disclosure adds value but leaves behavioral detail thin.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, the target resource, and the key safety qualifier with no wasted words. Every element earns its place.

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?

With zero parameters and an output schema present, the description covers the essentials. The only gap is usage context — a brief note about checking status before session refresh or before other KLAS operations would make it fully complete. As-is, it is adequate but leaves the agent to infer when to invoke it.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document beyond the baseline. The description appropriately confirms the tool operates on stored state without needing input, which is consistent with the empty schema. Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb (진단/diagnoses) with a specific resource (stored KLAS credential configuration state and session validity), and adds a safety qualifier (password not exposed). The purpose is clearly distinct from all siblings, which deal with courses, materials, deadlines, and progress rather than authentication state.

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 given on when to use this tool versus its closely related sibling klas_refresh_session. An agent cannot tell whether to call this first to check status before refreshing, or how the diagnostic outcome should influence next steps. The context is implied but never stated.

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