check_agent_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the owner can revoke access at any time and enumerates the possible return states (active / revoked / error). It does not explicitly state that the call is read-only or side-effect-free, but for a simple status check it is fairly transparent.

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 three concise sentences plus a returns line, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place by adding context, usage timing, or return values.

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 low complexity (zero parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains purpose, when to call, and return values. It omits what an agent should do after receiving a 'revoked' status, but that is arguably beyond the tool's scope.

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 there is no parameter semantics to document. The baseline score for a parameterless tool 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 specific verb and resource: 'Check whether your agent is still authorized by the owner.' It is not a tautology and an agent can easily tell it apart from siblings like check_login_wall or request_takeover, though the description does not explicitly differentiate.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this periodically (e.g. before starting a new task) to verify you are still active.' It does not mention when not to use it or name specific alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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