npm: Auth Status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read. The description adds valuable behavioral nuance beyond that: that a missing sibling tool should be interpreted as a configuration gap, not a bug, and that the `trusted_publishing_available` field can answer capability questions 'without spending a call.' This makes the tool's role and interpretation explicit.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core reporting function, then gives targeted diagnostic guidance. No wasted words; every sentence adds information about what the tool reveals or when to use it.

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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool, the description covers the main output areas and even names a key field (`trusted_publishing_available`) and its `blockers` list. Slight gap: no full response format is given, and with no output schema, a bit more detail on response shape would make it fully self-contained. Still, the essentials are present.

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 are zero parameters, and the input schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to add at the parameter level. The description correctly focuses on outputs and usage rather than inventing parameter detail. A zero-parameter tool earns the baseline score of 4.

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 begins with a precise verb and object: 'Report what this server can and cannot do,' then enumerates the exact dimensions covered (token configuration, account, 2FA, write access, cached OTP). This is unmistakably an auth/status diagnostic tool and leaves no ambiguity about its role relative to the sibling audit tool.

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?

It gives explicit guidance: 'Call this first when a tool you expected is missing — an absent tool means missing configuration rather than a bug.' It also instructs when to consult specific output fields, which is actionable. There are no alternatives or exclusions, but the diagnostic context is clear enough to warrant a 4.

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