gh_auth_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It merely states 'Check GitHub CLI authentication status,' which implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive, does not describe what happens when unauthenticated, or mention any network calls or side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's action and target. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or irrelevant details. This is appropriately concise for a simple status-check tool.

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 trivial complexity (zero parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is nearly complete. It clearly communicates the tool's function. However, it could be slightly improved by noting that it reports the current authentication state (e.g., 'returns the current status') or that it is safe to run, but the existing text suffices for this simple tool.

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 zero parameters, and the schema already covers this fully. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for 0 parameters, since no additional parameter semantics are needed. The description adds no parameter information, but none is required.

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 ('Check') and a clear resource ('GitHub CLI authentication status'). It directly states the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from the sibling tool gh_auth_login, which performs authentication rather than checking it.

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 usage context is implied by the description: one would use this tool when needing to verify GitHub CLI authentication. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is acceptable but minimal.

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