Clio sign-in status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the check reads a locally stored token and reports owner/expiry plus any in-progress sign-in, which implies a safe read. It does not state whether it makes network calls (that is only in the schema's 'verify' param), nor what happens on failure or how results are returned.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core check and enumerates the returned facts without filler. Every clause earns its place.

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, no-annotation, no-output-schema, single-optional-param tool, the description adequately covers what is reported (validity, owner, expiry, in-progress state). The main gap is the absence of guidance on the verify parameter's network implication, which is only partially recovered by the schema.

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?

There is one optional parameter ('verify') and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains that true triggers a /users/who_am_i call. The description adds nothing about this parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Checks') plus resource (stored Clio token / sign-in state) with enumerated outputs: validity, owner, expiry, and in-progress sign-in state. It is distinguishable from siblings like clio_who_am_i or clio_authenticate, though the description never explicitly contrasts them.

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 when-to-use guidance is given, nor any mention of the closely related siblings (clio_authenticate, clio_logout, clio_who_am_i, clio_diagnostics). An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the pre-flight status check. Usage is implied at best.

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