plu_auth_status

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

With no annotations provided, the burden falls on the description to disclose behavioral traits, but it is minimal. There is no mention of read-only nature, required prior authentication (e.g., cookies), or what the tool returns, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 extremely short at one sentence, which is concise but lacks structure or elaboration. While it is front-loaded, it may be overly minimal for effective use.

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 trivial complexity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is still incomplete. It does not explain what the status indicates, the return value format, or any constraints, making it insufficient for confident agent usage.

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 input schema has no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not add parameter-related info, but no parameters exist to describe, making this appropriate.

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 'Check authentication status' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool's purpose. It is distinguishable from siblings like plu_login (authentication action) and plu_get_auth_user (user details), though it does not elaborate on what exactly is checked.

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 guidelines are provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as plu_login or plu_get_auth_user. The description lacks context on prerequisites or the appropriate situation for checking auth status.

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