Auth Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying 'Effect: read,' human approval not required, and detailed failure handling (e.g., 'On failure: login_required → login; project_not_selected → list_projects/select_project; ...'). This contextualizes behavior beyond annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Use when, Do not use when, Requires, Effect, etc.). It is front-loaded with the key purpose. However, it is somewhat verbose with failure handling details, which could be condensed without losing clarity.

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 zero parameters, full annotation coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, prerequisites, failure modes, and procedural next steps, leaving no significant gaps for correct tool usage.

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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Check the current Abyss MCP login status.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like login, logout, and whoami by focusing on status checking.

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?

Explicitly provides use and misuse conditions: 'Use when: Check the current Abyss MCP login status.' and 'Do not use when: a narrower tool better matches the intent, the project scope is unresolved, or the user has declined the action.' Also states the requirement for authenticated API authority.

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