auth_status

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

The description adds context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying that it checks cache status and approximate expiration time. It does not detail whether it makes network calls or is purely local, but the annotation already covers safety, and the description provides useful behavioral information.

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 single-sentence description is concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose immediately. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundant or extraneous information.

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 tool has an output schema and no parameters, the description adequately covers the essential information: token caching status and approximate expiration. It is complete for a status-query tool without need for additional context.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description does not need to elaborate on parameters. It correctly focuses on output semantics, and the baseline for no parameters is 4, as the description adds value by explaining what the tool reports without parameter details.

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 clearly states the tool reports on Griptonite token caching and expiration, using specific verb 'report' and resource 'Griptonite token'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_login_url by focusing on token status rather than initiating login.

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 that this tool should be used to check authentication status before using other tools, providing clear context through its purpose. However, it lacks explicit when-not or alternative usage guidance, though the sibling list naturally clarifies its unique role.

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