auth_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently states the tool only checks login status and does not perform auto-login, accurately describing its behavioral limits. However, it does not specify the return format or potential side effects, which are minimal given the tool's simplicity.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, with the first sentence front-loading the main purpose. Every sentence earns its place, providing essential behavioral context without waste.

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 simplicity, the description covers the core functionality well. It lacks explicit mention of output or return values, but for a no-parameter, check-status tool, this is a minor gap. The description is mostly complete.

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, and the schema covers 100% of them trivially. The description adds no parameter-level details, which is acceptable because there are none to describe. Baseline score of 4 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 checks authentication status for UTOL ('UTOL にログイン済みかを確認する'), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from all sibling tools, which focus on course materials and updates, making it the only auth-related tool.

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 guidance on what to do based on login status and explicitly states the tool does not auto-login. While it doesn't explicitly mention when to use it versus siblings, the context suggests it should be called before other tools to check authentication, making the guidance clear but not exhaustive.

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