okta-status

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes outputs (authentication mode, tenant, etc.) but does not mention permissions, rate limits, or side effects. The term 'latest redacted proofs' is ambiguous.

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 sentence that succinctly lists the tool's outputs. Every word contributes to understanding, with no 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?

No output schema is provided, so the description should clarify the return format. It lists four items but does not specify if the output is structured or textual. For a simple status tool, this is moderately complete but could be better.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds value by enumerating what information is displayed, which goes beyond the empty schema.

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 it shows the authentication mode, tenant, connection state, and latest redacted proofs. The verb 'Show' and specific resources make the purpose obvious, distinguishing it from sibling tools like okta-start or okta-browser-navigate.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it is implied for checking status before other Okta actions, there is no 'when not to use' or comparison to similar tools like whoami or userinfo.

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