check_auth_status

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 the tool checks authentication status but doesn't describe what happens if authentication fails (e.g., returns false, throws error), what data is returned, or any side effects. This leaves gaps for a tool that likely informs subsequent actions.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Check if already authenticated') and specifies the context ('with Monarch Money'), making it easy to scan and understand immediately.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output, or integration with sibling tools. For a no-param tool, this might suffice, but the absence of output schema means the description should ideally hint at return values.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, aligning with the schema. A baseline of 4 is applied as it efficiently handles the lack of parameters without unnecessary detail.

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 tool's purpose: 'Check if already authenticated with Monarch Money.' It specifies the verb ('check') and resource ('authentication status'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'setup_authentication' beyond the implied read-only vs. setup distinction.

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, timing (e.g., before other operations), or contrast with sibling tools like 'setup_authentication' for unauthenticated cases. Usage is implied but not articulated.

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