auth-status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns (token status, expiration time, refresh indication) and implicitly indicates it is a non-mutating check. However, it does not clarify whether it makes network calls or could trigger a refresh, which would enhance transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every clause adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 parameters, the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool does and what information it provides, without requiring an output schema. The low complexity means the description fully covers the context.

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 has zero parameters, so the input schema is fully covered. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter-related info, which is appropriate. No additional meaning is needed for non-existent parameters.

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 clearly states the tool checks authentication status with Microsoft Graph API, showing token status, expiration time, and refresh need. It uses a specific verb and resource, and is clearly distinct from all sibling tools, which are task-related.

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 the tool should be used to verify authentication, but does not explicitly state when to use it, any prerequisites, or exclusions. There are no alternative auth tools among siblings, so it doesn't name alternatives, but it also doesn't provide contextual guidance like 'use before making API calls.'

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