plane-auth-status

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It implies a read-only check but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, nor mention permissions or rate limits. Adequate for a simple status check but could be more explicit.

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?

Two efficient sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose, then usage context. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

While the purpose is clear, the lack of output schema means the agent does not know what the response includes (e.g., boolean status, error details). Description could add expected return information. Given the tool's simplicity, it is minimally acceptable but not fully complete.

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?

No parameters exist; schema coverage is trivially 100%. Description adds no parameter info, but with zero params, baseline is 4. No additional explanation 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?

Clearly states the verb 'Check' and resource 'authentication status', specifying both auth types (v1 API key and session-based). Distinct from all sibling tools which are CRUD operations on entities; no other auth-checking tool exists.

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?

Explicitly mentions usefulness for debugging connection issues, providing clear context. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but given the tool's simplicity and uniqueness among siblings, this is adequate.

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