Sign-in status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that the tool reads cached MSAL accounts, reports an in-flight browser/device-code sign-in including its URL or code, and can optionally block until completion. The 'am I signed in?' framing conveys a read-only status query. It stops short of stating auth prerequisites or any side effects explicitly.

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?

Front-loaded with the core question the tool answers, then the routing note about cs_auth_who. It is dense but every clause (accounts, pending state, URL/code, wait) earns its place. Slightly packed with semicolons, but no wasted sentences.

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 and no annotations, yet the description compensates by describing what is returned (cached accounts, pending sign-in state and its URL/code). Combined with fully documented optional parameters, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only explicit auth/permission context is missing.

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 all three parameters (wait, tenantId, workspace) are already documented in the schema, including defaults and the 10-minute wait bound. The description only alludes to the wait behavior and adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource in the user's own terms ('Answer am I signed in? for the cloud tools') and enumerates exactly what it reports: cached MSAL accounts plus pending browser/device-code sign-in with its URL or code. It also distinguishes itself from the pac sign-in path, so an agent can tell it apart from cs_login, cs_logout, and cs_auth_who without opening a 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?

Explicitly routes the adjacent-but-different case: 'For the separate pac sign-in, cs_auth_who.' This gives a clear alternative for a related question. It does not state when the wait option should be preferred, but the schema documents that flag.

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