auth_status

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

Without annotations, the description discloses behavior changes based on environment (Lambda wrapper vs local). It does not mention side effects, but no destructive behavior is implied. Adding notes on whether it makes network calls or requires auth would improve 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?

Two sentences, no redundant words. The key purpose and environment-specific behavior are front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, making it efficient and clear.

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 an output schema (not shown), the description explains the tool's purpose and special case. It is mostly complete for a zero-parameter tool, though a note that it requires no inputs would slightly enhance completeness.

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?

With no parameters, the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds context about what the tool shows (auth config and cached accounts), which adds value beyond the empty schema. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description meets it.

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 shows auth configuration and cached accounts, using the verb 'Show'. It specifically distinguishes behavior in the MCP Lambda wrapper, differentiating it from sibling tools like start_auth and finish_auth.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like start_auth or finish_auth. It implies usage for checking status but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives or prerequisites.

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