auth_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Check authentication status' implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, but it doesn't disclose what the status entails, potential error conditions, or whether it makes network calls. Minimal behavioral disclosure, though the operation type is clear.

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?

One sentence, direct, and front-loaded. No filler or redundant phrasing. The description is immediately understandable and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple status-check tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but doesn't explain the return format or what 'status' conveys, which an agent might need to interpret results. Given the tool's simplicity and full schema coverage, it's minimally viable but leaves interpretive gaps.

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 schema already fully documents the only parameter (provider) with description and default (100% coverage), so the description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the domain context 'image generation provider'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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?

Description explicitly states the action ('check') and resource ('authentication status for an image generation provider'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like auth_login/auth_logout which perform auth changes. The verb+resource structure is specific and 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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are mentioned, but the context ('for an image generation provider') implies it is the status check companion to auth_login/auth_logout. The description doesn't state exclusions or conditions for use, so it's implied rather than explicit.

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