Check Auth Status

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It adds a key privacy disclosure that token values are never returned, and the verb 'Inspect' implies read-only behavior. It does not mention network side effects or rate limits, but for a zero-parameter status tool, this is adequate.

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 concise, with key information front-loaded in the first sentence. The Chinese intent mapping adds value without unnecessary bloat, and every sentence 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?

Even without an output schema, the description conveys what information is exposed (auth state, token state, OAuth/OBO configuration, user details) and the critical privacy boundary. It is sufficient for a read-only diagnostic tool with no parameters.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful context about what the status inspection covers, which is sufficient given no parameters exist.

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 the specific verb 'Inspect' and enumerates the exact resources covered (MCP auth state, local token state, remote OAuth/OBO configuration, current request user details). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling auth tools that start, complete, or clear login flows.

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 provides clear context for when to use it, including '诊断授权问题' (diagnose authorization issues) and checking login status. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the diagnostic intent and read-only scope differentiate it from mutation-focused auth siblings.

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