status

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

With no annotations, the description explains the output ordering rationale and implies the tool is read-only. It adds context beyond the schema but doesn't discuss rate limits or side effects, which are minimal for a status tool.

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, front-loaded with key outputs, and a second sentence providing rationale. No wasted words.

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?

The description is sufficient for a simple, parameterless tool with an output schema. It could mention that it's safe to call at any time, but overall it's complete enough.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no param info, which is acceptable as the baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 provider auth state, current form, active connections, and token stats. It uses specific nouns and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'auth' and 'call'.

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 indirectly suggests when to use the tool (diagnose first-run failures by checking provider auth first). It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives but provides clear context.

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