check_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 of behavioral disclosure. While it states the tool checks credential validity, it doesn't describe what 'valid' means (e.g., authentication status, token expiration), what happens if credentials are missing or invalid (e.g., error messages, return values), or any side effects (e.g., rate limits, logging). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Check') and resource ('credentials'), making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that checks credential status. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure indicators, detailed validity information) or handle edge cases (e.g., what if no credentials are set). For a tool in a credential management context with siblings like set_credentials, more completeness is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'platform' fully documented in the schema (including enum values and default). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the implications of choosing 'all' versus specific platforms. With high schema coverage, the baseline score 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check if credentials are configured and valid for each platform.' It specifies the verb ('check') and resource ('credentials'), and distinguishes it from credential-setting tools like set_credentials or set_login. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other credential-related tools like refresh_token, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether credentials must be set first), nor does it suggest scenarios where this check is necessary (e.g., before making a reservation). With sibling tools like set_credentials and refresh_token, explicit usage context would help the agent decide when to invoke this tool.

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