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 of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals the possible returned statuses (waiting/exchanging/done/error), but it does not state whether the call is side-effect free, how it behaves when no authentication flow is ongoing, or what an error entails. This is adequate but has clear 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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then provides the status vocabulary in parentheses. There is no wasted wording or redundant repetition of the tool name.

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 tool's low complexity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely sufficient: it names the operation, the target flow, and the status values. It could be more explicit about the exact return structure or behavior when no flow is active, but these are minor for a simple status-checking tool.

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 empty schema already fully documents the input. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and no additional parameter details are needed because there is nothing to supply.

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 verb (確認する/check) and the resource (status of the ongoing authentication flow), and also enumerates the possible statuses: waiting/exchanging/done/error. This unambiguously distinguishes it from the sibling authenticate tool, which starts a flow rather than checking its state.

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 context of 'ongoing authentication flow' implies this tool should be used after or during authentication to poll or inspect state, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The usage is reasonably inferable but not clearly specified.

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