auth_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit for adding the non-obvious caveat that a positive result does not mean the Portal server login is valid, and that no cookie value is consumed — context an agent would otherwise misread.

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 short sentences with no waste, and the positive scope is front-loaded ahead of the limitation. Nothing redundant or padded.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only, closed-world probe with full annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it checks and what it does not. It stops short of hinting at the return shape or what a failure means, which would have made it fully self-sufficient.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the schema is empty and fully described. The phrase 'tanpa nilai cookie' usefully confirms that no credential input is expected, preventing an agent from trying to pass one.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Periksa sesi Portal lokal') plus an explicit negative scope ('Tidak memverifikasi login ke server Portal'), so the agent knows this reports cached/local session state rather than server-validated auth. Sibling tools (catalog_*, repository_*) are unrelated domains, so sibling differentiation isn't required here.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is a cheap pre-flight check, but the description never says when to call it versus when server-side verification is actually needed, and names no alternative. The exclusion clause helps steer but isn't a full when-to-use rule.

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