Wint Status

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still contributes a genuinely useful trait not in the annotations: 'Makes no Wint call,' meaning it reads local state without hitting the external service, which tells the agent it is safe and cheap to poll. It stops short of saying what statuses can come back, but the output schema covers that.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the primary fact (what is reported) comes first while the operational caveat follows. Slightly clipped to the point of being fragmentary, but every clause carries information.

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 local status check with a full output schema and strong annotations, little more is needed. The one residual ambiguity is whose login attempt is meant (the bankid login flow implied by bankid_login_start/poll), which an agent can resolve from siblings.

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 the baseline is 4 by rule. There is nothing for the description to compensate for, and it correctly does not waste words on nonexistent inputs.

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 names the specific state being reported (whether a session is stored, plus the latest login attempt's status), which is concrete rather than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly contrast itself with connect_wint or bankid_login_poll, so sibling differentiation relies on the reader inferring it, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 cheap pre-flight check before calling connect_wint or the bankid login tools. There is no explicit 'use this before X' or 'use Y instead' statement, and no exclusion conditions are given. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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