auth_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It conveys that the tool reports login state and account number, which implies a read-only query, but it does not explicitly confirm side-effect-free behavior or describe the response shape. This is adequate for a zero-parameter status tool but not fully explicit.

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 entire description is one short, front-loaded sentence that states exactly what status information is returned. No filler or repetition.

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 simple zero-parameter status check, the description is nearly complete: it names the account system (WinLab) and the key outputs (logged in or not; account number). It could be more explicit about the return format when not logged in, but that is a minor 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?

There are no parameters, so the schema covers everything and the description does not need to add parameter-level meaning. The zero-parameter baseline is 4.

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 this is a status check: whether the agent is logged into the WinLab account and, if so, under which account number. This differentiates it from the auth_send_code, auth_login, and auth_logout siblings, which are action-oriented.

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 phrasing implies it should be used to check the current authentication state, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer it or contrast it with auth_login/auth_logout. No exclusions or alternative conditions are stated.

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