Get Status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does say the tool reads auth state plus basic user info. It stops short of disclosing important traits for a status tool — whether it errors when unauthenticated versus returning an unauthenticated status, and whether it is a cheap connectivity ping or a heavier lookup.

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 with no filler or redundancy. Nothing in it fails to earn 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and zero-parameter tools have a low bar. Even so, the description omits the one behavior that matters for a status tool — what happens when the caller is not authenticated — leaving it only minimally complete.

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 no parameter semantics to document. The baseline of 4 applies; nothing in the description is needed or missing on this dimension.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('authentication status and basic user information'), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It is clearly distinct from all siblings (draft/publication tools), though the description doesn't explicitly say so.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is a session/credential check — but there is no explicit 'use this before X' or 'use this to verify Y' guidance, and no mention of alternatives. For a zero-parameter utility tool this is acceptable, but it leaves the agent to reason about when to call it.

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