Auth Status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verbs "Show" and "Reports" imply a read-only inspection tool, and the description discloses what status details are returned, but it does not explicitly state that there are no side effects or whether authentication is required to call it.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and then details the reported fields in a single supporting sentence. It is appropriately sized for a simple status tool and contains no redundant wording.

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 zero parameters and an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values in detail. It adequately explains the profile-sensitive status being checked, though it could be slightly more complete by explicitly noting that the operation is read-only.

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 are no parameter semantics to document beyond the schema. The description appropriately focuses on what the parameterless status check reports rather than inventing input guidance.

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 a specific read-oriented purpose: showing OAuth configuration and stored token status. It explains the resource and scope well, including current-profile handling, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling auth tools such as auth_get_login_url or auth_logout.

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 implied: an agent would naturally use this to inspect whether OAuth credentials and tokens are configured. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use this versus related auth tools or when not to use it, leaving routing guidance implicit.

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