check_cookies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'check' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this is a simple status check or a validation against the server, what the output format might be, or any error conditions. For an authentication tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential 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?

For an authentication-related tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'set' means (locally stored? server-validated?), what the expected return value would be, or how this differs from other authentication tools. Given the complexity of authentication systems, more context is needed.

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 with 100% schema description coverage. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. This meets the baseline expectation for parameterless tools.

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 if authentication cookies are set. It uses a specific verb ('check') and identifies the resource ('authentication cookies'), but doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'verify_authentication' or 'set_cookies' that also deal with authentication state.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'verify_authentication' and 'set_cookies' available, there's no indication of when this specific cookie check is appropriate versus other authentication-related tools.

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