plainhub_auth_status

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: the token is masked to prefix and trailing characters, and the reachable scope depends on token type. It stops short of saying what the response looks like when no token is saved (missing vs. invalid), which is the one behavior an agent would still want.

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 most decision-relevant fact (is a token saved, and how far it reaches) is front-loaded, and the secondary note about the token prefix is compact. The trailing 'Example: {}' is filler that could be dropped without loss.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema probe, the description covers the key facts: what is inspected, how it is masked, what the two token classes imply, and when it is unnecessary. Only the no-token/empty result case is left implicit.

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 takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The 'Example: {}' fragment confirms the empty-argument call, though it adds little 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Check whether a GitHub token is saved for PlainHub') and immediately scopes the answer by token type: fine-grained tokens reach only chosen repositories, classic/gh CLI tokens reach everything. That distinguishes it from the sibling plainhub_auth, which performs the auth rather than reporting status.

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?

It gives explicit routing: 'Use it before plainhub_auth to see whether the user is already set up', naming the alternative and the condition that selects it. It also states the negative case clearly - the ledger needs no PlainHub token, so posting, deciding and syncing do not require this check.

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