get_auth_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'without exposing any token' security detail, which is genuinely useful beyond annotations. However, it does not describe what the returned status looks like, whether hostname affects behavior, or any auth-related edge cases. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single concise sentence that states the purpose and the key safety property in zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main action and includes a meaningful qualifier. This is appropriately sized for a simple auth-status verification tool.

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?

This is a simple tool with readOnly annotations and no output schema. The description covers the core purpose and safety angle. However, with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage for the 2 parameters, an agent may not know what outcome format to expect or how hostname factors in. For a simple tool the gaps are moderate, not severe.

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 provides no parameter-level information. The account parameter's meaning is somewhat implied by the description's 'selected isolated GitHub CLI account', but hostname is entirely undocumented. With 2 parameters at 0% coverage and no description-based compensation, this is a significant gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') with a specific resource ('the selected isolated GitHub CLI account'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like list_accounts by focusing on auth status verification rather than listing. The 'without exposing any token' detail adds a useful safety qualifier. A small deduction for not fully elaborating what 'status' entails.

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 implies a single logical use case (verify auth status of selected account) but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives like list_accounts or run_gh, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context of 'selected isolated account' gives some indication, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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