klax_auth_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a meaningful safety guarantee ('비밀번호 비노출' / password not exposed) and the verb '진단합니다' (diagnoses) strongly implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool makes no state changes, nor does it mention prerequisites like prior authentication. Still, the core behavioral traits of a diagnostic, non-exposing tool are conveyed.

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 purpose and the key safety property. Every word earns its place; the security note is concise but important. No fluff, no redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

This is a zero-parameter diagnostic tool with an output schema, so the description does not need to enumerate return values. The description covers what the tool inspects and a critical security guarantee. For such a simple tool, it is complete and sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema is empty (0 parameters), so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description correctly says nothing about parameters, allowing the empty schema to stand as the complete specification. There is no additional semantic burden to resolve.

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 ('진단합니다' / diagnoses) and names the exact resource being inspected (KLAS credential configuration status and session validity). It also adds a distinguishing trait ('비밀번호 비노출' / password not exposed), which clearly separates it from sibling tools like klax_refresh_session or klax_list_courses.

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?

Nothing in the description explains when to prefer this tool over klax_refresh_session or other auth-related siblings. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance, only an implicit 'use to check status' inference from the name and description. The absence of any alternative routing or context hurts an agent's ability to decide correctly.

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