auth_status

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

With no annotations supplied, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose key facts: sign-in occurs outside the server via external auth CLIs or the desktop app, and tokens are re-read on every call rather than cached. It does not state whether the call itself is read-only/side-effect-free or whether it performs network I/O that could fail or be slow, which are the remaining behavioral gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core statement, then when-to-use, then what it does not cover. Content is efficient, though the parentheticals and emphasized "THIS" make it slightly more verbose than a bare-bones routing note would need to be.

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?

Return values need not be explained because an output schema exists, and the out-of-band auth prerequisite plus per-call token refresh cover the two things an agent most needs before calling. The only omission is any signposting of failure or unauthenticated states the agent should expect to interpret.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is high. The description adds no parameter-level meaning because none is needed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Report the facility sign-in state") scoped precisely to "THIS server sees for its own HPC dispatch (ALCF and NERSC)". It also explicitly negates a plausible misreading ("It says nothing about the facility servers' own tokens"), which cleanly separates it from sibling dispatch tools like get_dispatch and set_dispatch.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions: "Call this before set_dispatch to a remote site, or when one of this server's remote calls fails with an auth error." It names the sibling it pairs with and redirects the reader elsewhere ("ask those servers directly") for the facility-side question.

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