Get source authentication status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'returns' and adds a useful security detail ('without exposing browser credentials'), but it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, staleness of 'last known', or error handling.

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, well-structured sentence with no redundant information. Every phrase adds meaning, making it highly concise.

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 simple getter with one parameter, it covers the main purpose and safety behavior. However, with no output schema, it omits the return format and does not address edge cases (e.g., source not found), leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not directly explain sourceId. It indirectly references it as 'a configured GitHub Pages source', but offers no format or additional context, leaving the parameter under-documented.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'returns' and identifies the resource as 'last known authentication state for a configured GitHub Pages source'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like begin_source_reauth and validate_source_auth by being a status getter rather than a mutating or validation action.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It does not mention typical scenarios (e.g., checking status before re-auth) or explicitly exclude alternatives like validate_source_auth.

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