auth-check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe behavioral traits such as what the output looks like (e.g., success/failure status, error messages), whether it's idempotent, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that checks authentication status.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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?

Given the tool's purpose (checking authentication status) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., boolean status, detailed auth info) or potential side effects, which is crucial for an authentication-related tool. The schema coverage is high, but behavioral context is lacking.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'store' fully documented in the schema (including enum values and default). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining why one might choose 'both' over individual stores. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Check authentication status') and target resources ('App Store Connect / Google Play Console'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'apps-init' or 'apps-add' which might also involve authentication, missing full sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., before performing operations that require authentication), exclusions, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'apps-init' that might handle authentication setup.

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