Get Auth Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds detailed behavioral context: it returns three specific fields (gate_enabled, unlocked, message) and describes the special case when no password is set ('gate is off and all profiles are public'). This goes beyond annotations and fully informs the agent.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, both front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose, the second specifies return values and edge case. Every sentence adds value without waste.

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's simplicity (0 parameters, no complex logic), the description fully covers what the agent needs: purpose, return type, and behavior in the default and edge cases. Annotations and output schema exist, so no further detail is necessary.

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 no parameters, so the input schema is trivially covered (100%). The description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description meets that without any redundant or missing info.

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's purpose: checking the status of a password gate ('active and unlocked'). It uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource, and the title 'Get Auth Status' reinforces this. Among 39 sibling tools, none overlap directly, so no confusion.

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 when to use the tool (to check auth gate status), but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings (e.g., gv_unlock, gv_setup_password). Context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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