auth_verify_cloak

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. While 'verify' suggests a read-only operation, the description does not explicitly state that it makes no modifications, what it returns (e.g., boolean), or whether it has side effects like network calls or caching. This leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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 sentence of twelve words, front-loading the key verb and resource. Every word contributes to meaning, with no filler or repetition. It is maximally concise while remaining informative.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description must compensate by explaining the return value or behavioral details. It does not mention what outcome the tool reports (e.g., 'true' or 'false'), nor any conditions that might affect the result. The description is complete for stating the tool's existence but incomplete for an agent to fully understand the output or preconditions.

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 input schema has two parameters with zero description coverage, so the description's job is to add meaning. It provides context that site_id refers to a 'registered site' and target_profile to an 'allowlisted Cloak profile', which helps map the parameters conceptually. However, it does not specify format, validation rules, or how the values are used beyond this general mapping.

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 specific verb 'Verify' and clearly states the resource being checked: whether an allowlisted Cloak profile is logged in to a registered site. This distinguishes the tool from siblings like auth_list_sites (which lists sites) and auth_sync_to_cloak (which syncs). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies a clear use case—checking login status for a profile and site—but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. It is sufficient for a straightforward verification, but lacks guidance on edge cases or prerequisites (e.g., profile must be allowlisted, site must be registered).

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