mf_auth_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks authentication status, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify what the check entails (e.g., whether it validates tokens, returns user info, or indicates session validity). It also lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, which are critical for a tool dealing with authentication. The description is too vague to fully inform agent behavior.

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, concise sentence ('認証状態を確認します') that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core function, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by delivering essential information.

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 complexity of authentication tools and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean status, token details, or error messages), which is crucial for an agent to understand the result. Without this, the agent cannot properly handle the tool's output or integrate it into workflows, leaving significant gaps in usability.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline expectation. No additional value is required, but it also doesn't compensate for any gaps since none exist.

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 '認証状態を確認します' (checks authentication status) states a clear verb ('checks') and resource ('authentication status'), providing a basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'mf_auth_start' or 'mf_refresh_token', which are also related to authentication but serve different functions. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what aspect of authentication status is being checked.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether it requires prior authentication steps), exclusions, or how it compares to siblings like 'mf_auth_start' (which likely initiates authentication) or 'mf_refresh_token' (which might renew tokens). Without such context, an agent might struggle to select this tool appropriately in different scenarios.

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