foto_auth_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It does convey that this is a non-mutating status read and that the result covers logged-in user and token validity, but it says nothing about whether the token is refreshed, whether the call has side effects, or how an unauthenticated/expired state is reported.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical earns its place by enumerating the returned fields. Slightly awkward phrasing ("with Foto app") is the only blemish.

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?

The tool is simple (no params, no annotations), but with no output schema the description should fully describe the return shape and failure modes. It covers the two key fields but not the states (valid/expired/absent) or recommended next actions, leaving a real gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document beyond what the empty schema already shows; this is the expected baseline for a no-arg tool.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Check") with a specific resource ("authentication status with Foto app") and clarifies the two pieces of information returned (logged-in user, token validity). This is clearly distinct from the sibling foto_login/foto_logout tools, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the pre-flight check before calling other foto_* tools, but the description never says when to call it or what to do based on the result (e.g. fall back to foto_login when not authenticated). No explicit alternatives or exclusions are given.

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