ktalk_auth_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool reports liveness of either a personal API key or session token, and for the API key also scopes and expiration when available. This goes well beyond the tool name and effectively communicates a read-only, diagnostic behavior, though it does not discuss error or edge-case behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded: the purpose appears in the first sentence, followed by the concrete report contents and the single parameter. Every sentence carries useful information, with no filler or repetition of structural data.

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 one optional parameter, and the description covers its purpose, output semantics, and parameter values. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return fields. Nothing essential for selecting or invoking the tool is missing.

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 schema provides only the parameter name, type, and default with no description (0% coverage). The tool description compensates fully by explaining the 'format' parameter and enumerating its allowed values: 'raw' (JSON) or 'markdown'. This gives the agent everything needed to choose the correct value.

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 states a specific verb ('Diagnose') and resource ('active authorization mechanism'), and explains exactly what is reported: API key/token liveness, scopes, and expiration. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which all deal with meetings, recordings, transcripts, or contacts.

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 intended use case is clear from the opening phrase 'Diagnose the active authorization mechanism' — an agent can infer this is for checking authentication state. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling tools are all data-retrieval operations with no functional overlap, so no alternative routing is needed.

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