auth_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Check' clearly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, and it indicates the type of information returned (authorization status and member identity). It lacks details about the exact response format or edge cases, but for a status-check tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and purpose. Every word earns its place, conveying both the authorization check and the member identity aspect without any fluff.

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?

The tool is very simple: no parameters, no output schema, and a clear purpose. The description explains what the tool does and what it reveals (authorization and member), which is sufficient for an agent to know when and how to invoke it. There are no hidden complexities or side effects to disclose.

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, so per rubric the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details since the input schema is empty, and it correctly implies that no arguments are required.

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?

Description uses the specific verb 'Check' and clearly states the resource (authorization to post) and the additional output (which member). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that perform actions like publish_now or schedule_post.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or exclusions are provided, but it is implied that this tool is used before posting or scheduling to verify authorization. Given the simplicity of the tool, the absence of explicit alternatives is acceptable but still leaves room for clearer guidance.

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