tp_auth_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. The description claims a 'check' but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, has no side effects, or what the response contains. This is a minimal disclosure, leaving behavioral assumptions ambiguous.

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, each serving a purpose: the first defines the function, the second narrows usage. No redundant or extraneous text.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the status check returns or indicates. It does not, leaving the agent unsure whether the output is a boolean, a message, or structured auth details. For a diagnostic tool, this gap is significant.

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 with a fully described empty schema, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter details since none exist.

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?

Clearly states the tool's verb and resource: 'Check auth status'. The description is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like tp_refresh_auth by implying a read-only status check rather than a refresh action, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use only when other tools return auth errors.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke it, and implies not to use it otherwise. However, it does not mention alternative tools like tp_refresh_auth for resolving the errors.

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