atlassian_auth_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and delivers comprehensively. It discloses that it returns boolean presence flags only, never secrets, returns the instance URL verbatim, is read-only, and outputs YAML. Every behavioral trait is transparently stated, leaving no ambiguity about side effects or data handling.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and every sentence adds distinct value: secret safety, URL handling, local-only behavior, CLI contrast, no arguments, read-only, output format. It is concise yet information-dense, with no redundant phrases.

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 (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is remarkably complete. It covers functionality, limitations, return content, safety, and output format. It also provides contrast with a relevant alternative, fully equipping the agent to use and interpret the tool correctly.

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 input schema is an empty object, indicating zero parameters. The description explicitly states 'Takes no arguments,' which aligns with the schema. With no parameters to document, the description adds no semantic details, but the baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.

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 function: 'Report which Atlassian credential scopes have credentials configured.' The verb 'report' and specific resource 'Atlassian credential scopes' make the purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from the CLI alternative by clarifying what it does not do (validate credentials).

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 explicitly contrasts this tool with `omni-dev atlassian auth status`, stating it checks local configuration only and does NOT call the API to validate credentials. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, with an explicit alternative named for validation.

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