baasix_auth_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Check' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, which is useful, but the description does not disclose behavior such as response format, error handling when unauthenticated, or whether token validity checks trigger network calls.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. Every word contributes to stating the tool's purpose.

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?

Adequate for a very simple 0-parameter status check, but since no output schema exists, the description could usefully state what the tool returns (e.g., boolean vs. status object) and could mention its relationship to auth lifecycle siblings. These are gaps, though minor given the tool's simplicity.

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, so the description has no parameter semantics to add. The baseline of 4 applies: nothing is missing on this front.

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 states a specific verb ('Check') and precise resources ('authentication status and token validity'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like baasix_login, baasix_logout, and baasix_refresh_auth, which perform actions rather than read state.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus related siblings such as baasix_get_current_user or baasix_refresh_auth, and there are no exclusions or conditional recommendations. The usage context is only implied by the name and description, not stated.

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