Teamwork: auth status

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful context beyond that: it names the specific aspects it inspects (configuration existence, target site, storage location). This helps the agent understand what the tool does without side effects. It doesn't describe return format, but that's minor for a read-only diagnostic.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the action ('Check') and then enumerates the three key outputs. Every word earns its place; there is zero redundancy or fluff.

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 parameterless, read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what it does, what it returns conceptually, and that it is safe. The tool's simplicity means nothing essential is missing.

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 schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description adds no parameter details because none exist. With no parameters to document, this dimension is trivially satisfied; a baseline of 4 applies and the description exceeds it by being clear about the tool's scope.

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 ('Check') and resource ('Teamwork API key configured on this machine'), and enumerates the exact facts it returns (whether configured, site, storage location). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like whoami or logout, which address different concerns.

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 purpose is self-evident: use when you need to verify API key setup. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but given no sibling overlaps, the context is clear enough. A slight improvement would be to note it's a preflight check before other calls.

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