hh_check_auth

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the valuable guarantee that secret values are never revealed and only set/unset status is reported. It also sketches the return shape, though the output schema already carries that detail.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the security constraint, then the return shape. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 zero parameters, full annotation coverage, and an output schema present, the description is nearly complete: purpose, secrecy behavior, and return keys are all stated. The only gap is not tying the result to a next action (e.g., how to populate missing variables), which is a usage concern rather than a completeness failure.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No parameter meaning is added or needed.

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 resource (required credentials in the environment), making the tool's job unambiguous. It is easily distinguished from siblings like hh_set_key or hh_call_method, which act on credentials or methods rather than reporting their presence.

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 implied (run this before credential-dependent calls to see if the environment is ready), but the description never states when to use it, what to do when 'ready' is false, or how it relates to siblings such as hh_set_key. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer the workflow.

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