Sign-in status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful context: checks cached MSAL accounts, reports pending browser/device-code sign-ins with URL or code, and optionally waits for completion. It doesn't explicitly state read-only safety, permission requirements, or output structure, but for a status-check tool these gaps are minor.

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 definition is two sentences with zero waste, front-loading the core purpose and then immediately routing the agent to the sibling for pac sign-in. Every clause earns 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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain what is returned. It does so at a high level ('cached MSAL accounts', pending sign-in with URL or code), which is sufficient to call and interpret the tool. It does not detail the exact response shape, but for a simple status tool this is a minor gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents wait, tenantId, and workspace. The description only maps 'optionally wait for it to complete' to the wait parameter and adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Answer am I signed in?') and scopes it to 'cloud tools', then explicitly distinguishes the separate 'pac sign-in' handled by cs_auth_who. An agent can tell this apart from sibling auth tools without opening any schema.

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?

It names the condition for use ('am I signed in?' for cloud tools) and the explicit alternative ('For the separate pac sign-in, cs_auth_who'). The optional wait behavior is also described, leaving no ambiguity about when to call it versus cs_auth_who.

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