linkedin_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. The description states it checks login status but doesn't disclose what happens when not logged in (error vs boolean return), whether it performs side effects (e.g., requests, session refresh), or what the response format looks like. With zero annotations and no output schema, more detail would be valuable.

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, zero waste, immediately front-loaded with the purpose. Every word earns its place for a zero-parameter status-check tool.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema status check, the description is reasonably complete. However, it doesn't explain the return value semantics (boolean? error?) or clarify behavior when the session is missing. Given the lack of annotations, a brief note about expected output or failure behavior would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100% (trivially, since there are no parameters). With no parameters to document, a baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description doesn't need to add parameter detail 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 clearly states the tool checks whether the saved Playwright session is logged into LinkedIn. It uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('saved Playwright session') with a clear scope (login status). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, but its purpose is naturally distinct from login/logout which perform actions.

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 implies a natural use-case: verifying login state before performing authenticated actions. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., calling linkedin_login directly), nor does it state that this should be used as a precondition check before other operations. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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