yoto_auth_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds the useful constraint that it reports token presence without returning the token itselfcars. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure for an auth-related 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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action, no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 simple, parameterless status check, the description sufficiently conveys purpose and the key security-relevant constraint (no token returned). With no output schema present, the 'whether' wording implies a yes/no result, which is adequate for this complexity level.

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 schema has zero parameters)Skip parsing: 0 parameters baseline of 4; nothing more needs to be compensated.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('show') and resource ('whether this local server has a Yoto refresh token'), clearly distinguishing a status check from the sibling auth_start/auth_logout tools. 'Without returning tokens' further narrows the tool's behavior and prevents confusion with credential-returning operations.

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 immediately clear as a read-only auth status check, and sibling names imply the surrounding auth flow. It does not explicitly state exclusions or when to prefer this over alternatives, but for a zero-parameter status tool the context is sufficient.

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