auth_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'check status' without mentioning side effects, authorization requirements, or whether the operation is safe/read-only. Key behavioral traits are missing.

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, making it concise. However, the cross-reference to tool_help is somewhat unusual and disrupts a self-contained structure. No unnecessary words, but could be more logically organized.

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 the absence of annotations, output schema, and detailed parameter info, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or when this tool is appropriate. A simple check tool should provide more context for effective use.

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 input schema has one parameter ('profile') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain its meaning or usage. The reference to tool_help does not add semantic value within this definition. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter details.

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 purpose: 'Check the current direct auth profile status (token presence, login, expiry).' It uses a specific verb ('Check') and identifies the resource ('auth profile status') with explicit aspects. This distinguishes it from siblings like auth_login or auth_setup.

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 only says 'Call tool_help('auth_status') for parameters,' which delegates guidance elsewhere. There is no explanation of when to use this tool versus alternatives like auth_login or auth_setup. The agent receives no contextual usage advice.

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