globus_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey that the tool reports current state rather than changing it, and it lists the specific session attributes returned. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects, does not require authentication, or has any rate or access considerations.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the primary concept ('current session state') and immediately enumerates the useful details. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration.

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 status tool with an output schema present, the description adequately covers the key information an agent needs: authorization status, store/purchase method, and device identifier. It does not explain return formatting, but the output schema already exists to fill that 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 has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is effectively complete, so parameter description is not needed. The description correctly focuses on what the session status contains rather than trying to document nonexistent parameters.

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 that the tool reports the current session state, specifically whether the user is authorized, which store/delivery method is selected, and the device identifier. This is a specific resource ('session status') with clear scope. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling auth_* tools, but the read-only status nature is evident from the wording.

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to call this tool versus alternatives such as auth_login, auth_logout, or set_purchase_method. It implies a read-only status check, but does not state that this is the tool to call when the agent needs to know the current authorization or purchase-method context before proceeding.

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