auth_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states output values but does not explicitly say the tool has no side effects or that it does not trigger authentication. The word 'Show' implies read-only, and the three statuses are useful, but 'partial' is undefined and no side-effect guarantee is stated.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence without filler. It states the verb, resource, scope, and output format in 18 words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter, the description covers purpose, scope, and return values. Minor gaps remain—such as what 'partial' means and whether the tool modifies state—but these are not critical 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?

Schema coverage is 100% because the only parameter, 'server', has a description ('If set, return status for this server only. Otherwise all servers.'). The tool description merely mirrors that behavior without adding new meaning, so a baseline of 3 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 clear verb ('Show') and a specific resource ('authentication status') with an explicit scope ('one or all servers'). It even enumerates the return states (authenticated, partial, unauthenticated), which fully differentiates it from siblings like authenticate (which modifies auth state) and list_servers (which lists servers).

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: whenever an agent needs to inspect which servers are already authenticated versus those that are not. It does not explicitly contrast with authenticate, but the verb 'Show' and the return-state list make the use case obvious.

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