othos_auth_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It states 'Check' which implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm safety, side effects, or idempotency. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the tool name and the word 'check'.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose with no wasted words or unnecessary detail.

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 status check tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the action. It could mention the expected output format, but the current description is sufficient for basic usage given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema coverage is 100% (trivial). Per guidelines, baseline 4 is appropriate since no param description 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 clearly states the verb 'Check' and specifies the resource: whether the server has an Othos auth cookie and/or MCP personal token configured. It effectively distinguishes from sibling auth tools which involve actions like connecting, logging in, or token management.

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 indicates this tool is for checking authentication status, providing clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives, but the purpose is clear from the naming and sibling tools.

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