auth-status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states this is a read-only check ('check whether'), which signals non-destructive behavior, and adds the specific detail about token expiry. This is sufficient for a simple status tool, though it could mention network dependency or error cases.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence that immediately states the action and the key informational output. No filler or redundancy.

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 parameterless read-only tool with no output schema, the description gives a complete picture: it tells the agent what is checked and what will be reported (authenticated state and expiry time). There is no missing scope, inputs, or outputs that the agent would need to know.

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 baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids mentioning non-existent parameters and focuses purely on the tool's return value, which is all that 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('server authenticated with Filevine', 'token expires'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate and logout. It precisely names the query being answered.

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 tool's purpose implies usage as a pre-flight authentication check, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., before calling other tools, or that authenticate is needed if not authenticated). The context is implied, not stated.

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