auth_status

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

No annotations are given, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly implies a read-only operation ('Show'), but it does not explicitly disclose that it does not modify state, nor does it mention any requirements or edge cases (e.g., what happens if no subdomain is logged in). For a simple status tool this is adequate, but not rich.

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, concise sentence that conveys the full purpose without any filler. It is front-loaded and economical, earning a top score.

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 simple, parameterless read tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It states exactly what the tool reports. The only minor gap is not describing the format of the returned status, but this is not critical for invoking the tool 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 has zero parameters, and the schema is trivially complete. Per the baseline guidance for 0-param tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description correctly omits parameter details because there are none.

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 states a specific verb ('Show') and a clear resource ('login status for all configured subdomains and the active one'). It distinguishes itself from the many login-related sibling tools (login, login_all, etc.) by being the only status check among them. The scope is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely states what it does, without mentioning that it should be used before login actions or to verify session state. Since the siblings are all mutation/login tools, some context on when to query status would be helpful, but none is provided.

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