Check eLearn authentication

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks authentication, which implies read-only behavior, but does not explicitly mention non-mutating characteristics or the return format. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is adequate but could be more explicit.

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, clean sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning a top score.

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 tool with no parameters and a simple status-check function, the description is largely complete. However, it does not mention the return value or output format, which could be useful for an agent. Since there is no output schema, a brief note on what is returned (e.g., boolean) would improve completeness, but it is not critical.

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 an empty schema (100% coverage). According to the calibration rule, a baseline of 4 applies for zero-parameter tools, and since there are no parameters to document, the description adds no additional semantic burden.

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 states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('whether the dedicated Chrome profile is currently authenticated with SMU eLearn'), which clearly identifies the tool's function. It is distinct from sibling tools like elearn_authenticate, 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 description clearly implies a status-check use case without explicit exclusions or alternatives. It does not name sibling tools or provide 'when not to use' guidance, but the purpose is unambiguous enough that an agent would know to call this before deciding whether further actions are needed.

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