qwen_check_auth

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the return structure (authenticated bool, method, detail, suggestion) and the conditional behavior (if false, read the suggestion field with the exact command). This is transparent and useful, though it doesn't mention any side effects (likely none for a check).

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 four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, usage, return values, and conditional guidance. It is front-loaded and contains zero fluff.

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 simple check tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, and how to respond to a negative result. No significant gaps remain.

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 schema fully describes the single parameter (timeout_seconds with its own description), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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's purpose: 'Check whether the Qwen Code CLI is authenticated before making any qwen_prompt calls.' It identifies the specific resource (Qwen Code CLI) and the action (check auth), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like gemini_check_auth and opencode tools by referencing 'qwen_prompt' and Qwen-specific setup.

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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Always call this first if you are unsure whether Qwen is set up.' It also ties usage to qwen_prompt calls, giving clear context for when to invoke the tool. It doesn't mention when-not-to-use or alternatives, but for a check tool this is nearly complete.

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