gv_check_login

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about the result shape (boolean vs. status object), whether the check makes a network request that can fail or time out, or how a logged-out state is reported. It also never states that it is a side-effect-free read, which cannot be assumed given the sibling gv_login mutates session state.

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 zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning, and the purpose is stated first.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should at minimum describe what the check returns so the agent can branch on it; that information is entirely absent. The tool is simple enough that an agent can still invoke it correctly, but interpreting the result is left to guesswork.

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 explain; the schema is trivially complete. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.

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 ('Check') and a specific resource ('whether the user is currently logged into Google Voice'), so an agent knows exactly what question the tool answers. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling gv_login, which is the obvious point of confusion, keeping it from a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus gv_login, nor any stated prerequisite or typical workflow (e.g., check before SMS operations, call gv_login if false). Usage is only inferable from the tool name and purpose, not from the description.

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