drive_auth_status

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses read-only behavior, no API call, no token refresh check, and the commitment to never return secrets or access tokens. This goes well beyond a simple verb+resource sentence and prevents misuse.

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 generally tight and front-loaded: purpose first, then return guarantees and limitations. Slight redundancy remains in closing 'Mirrors `omni-dev drive auth status`' right after 'Unlike the CLI ...', which could confuse an agent briefly.

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 read-only status tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, this description is complete: it says what the tool checks, what it returns, what it refuses to return, and what it cannot verify. The optional parameter is fully documented in the input schema.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: the `account` parameter already fully explains named-account selection, default resolution, legacy credentials, and points to `drive_account_list`. The tool description adds no parameter detail, but the structured schema covers it completely.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and names the exact resource: Drive OAuth2 credential configuration. It states what is returned (presence flags, granted scope) and explicitly what is never returned, so the tool's job is unambiguous and distinct from generic auth/status tools.

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 distinguishes this MCP tool from the CLI equivalent, states that it does not call the Drive API, and tells the agent when to use the CLI instead for real verification. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, plus a concrete alternative.

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