tc_auth_status

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

The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond the annotations, such as the exact return fields (login state, token expiry, user name/email) and that the data comes from a cached ID token. It also explains the 'pending' state, which is not captured in annotations. No contradictions with readOnlyHint or idempotentHint.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds meaningful information. There is no redundancy or 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?

With no parameters and a rich output schema, the description fully covers when and why to use the tool, including return values and edge cases like pending logins. It is complete for a status-checking tool.

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 the schema fully covers all inputs. Per the baseline, a score of 4 is appropriate since there is nothing to describe beyond the absence of parameters.

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 checks the user's sign-in status for Trimble Connect. It uses a specific verb ('check') and identifies the resource (authentication state). It is distinguished from sibling tools like tc_login and tc_login_cancel by focusing on status rather than initiating or canceling 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 explicitly specifies when to call this tool: first if any other tool returns an authentication error, and after a tc_login call with 'pending': true. It also clarifies the meaning of 'login_in_progress' for pending browser sign-ins, providing clear context for use.

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