yandex_auth_status

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden, and it delivers a key behavioral fact: the token itself is never shown, only a fingerprint. That is genuinely useful disclosure beyond the schema. It doesn't state permissions or whether the check is side-effect free, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The payload (what is reported) is front-loaded and the invocation rule is second, which is exactly the right ordering for a status tool.

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 output schema, annotations, or parameters, the description does the needed work by enumerating the returned fields (storage, ClientID, tokens, expiry) and the fingerprint caveat. It could say more about what an unauthenticated result looks like, but it is sufficient to call correctly.

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 to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a parameterless status probe.

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 resource (auth/connection status) and enumerates exactly what it reports: secret storage backend, presence of app ClientID and tokens, and token expiry. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like yandex_login and yandex_submit_code, which perform auth actions rather than reporting state.

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 an explicit trigger condition: 'Вызывай первым, если какой-то инструмент ответил «нет токена»' — call it first when another tool reports a missing token. That is a concrete when-to-use rule tied to a failure mode of siblings.

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