atlassian_auth_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the entire behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it names exactly what is returned, guarantees secrets (email, API token, PAT) are never included, clarifies the instance URL is returned verbatim as non-secret, and states the tool performs no network calls or credential validation. This is precisely the safety and scope profile an agent needs before invoking a credential-inspecting tool.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and return shape, then the security guarantee, then the scope limitation and contrast with the CLI. Every sentence carries distinct information — none is filler or a restatement of the name.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description fully compensates by enumerating the return fields and the output format (YAML). Combined with the no-argument signature and the explicit statement of what it does not do, an agent has everything required to invoke it 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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4, and the description reinforces this with 'Takes no arguments.' Schema coverage is 100% and there is nothing further to disambiguate, so no additional credit is available.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — reporting which Atlassian credential scopes have credentials configured — and enumerates the returned fields (presence flags, auth_mode, configuration_state, instance URL). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the similarly named `omni-dev atlassian auth status` CLI, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool does and does not do.

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?

Gives clear context for when this tool applies: local configuration checking only, no API call, no secret-file reads, no credential helpers. The contrast with the CLI variant that signs in and prints the authenticated user is an explicit alternative. It stops short of saying 'call this before other Atlassian tools to verify credentials,' so it is not a full when/when-not statement.

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