passgage_auth_status

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. 'Check' implies a read-only operation, and listing the three outputs adds value. However, it does not disclose potential error conditions, whether authentication is required to call this endpoint, or the return format, which leaves behavioral gaps.

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 is concise and free of waste. Every word contributes meaning, listing exactly what the tool checks.

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 no-parameter status check with no output schema or annotations, the description adequately conveys the core return values (status, mode, methods). It lacks explicit detail on edge cases or error behavior, but the simplicity of the tool keeps this from being a major deficiency.

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. There is no parameter information needed, and the description appropriately focuses on output rather than input.

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') with a clear resource ('authentication status') and lists three concrete aspects: status, current mode, and available authentication methods. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like passgage_get_auth_modes, which likely only lists modes without the current 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?

The description implies it is for checking authentication state, giving some usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus siblings like passgage_get_auth_modes or passgage_login, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.

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