get_auth_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The word 'Get' clearly signals a read-only operation, and there is no mention of side effects. It does not elaborate on prerequisites (e.g., requiring an established session), but as a status getter this is a minor gap.

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 concise sentence that leads with the verb 'Get' and contains no filler. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose.

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 getter with an output schema, the description provides sufficient information to select and invoke the tool. It could be slightly richer by clarifying whether this reflects live or cached data, but the omission is not critical given the output schema.

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, and the empty schema fully defines the inputs. The baseline for 0 params is 4; the description adds no parameter information, but none is needed here.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('current authentication mode and sign-in/cache status'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform sign-in actions, such as start_interactive_sign_in or complete_interactive_login.

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 it should be used to inspect current authentication state, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives like test_connection or authenticate_mcp_session. No exclusions or alternative tool recommendations are provided.

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