ie_login_status

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that, namely that no browser is opened and that the tool only reflects the active sign-in job's status. It does not fully explain what 'expiry' means, but enough is disclosed.

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, no filler, with the core action first and the routing guidance second. Every phrase earns its place.

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 read-only status probe with annotations, an output schema, and a single enum parameter, the description is largely sufficient. It could be slightly more explicit about what 'expiry' refers to and how this relates to starting a login, but the core selection and invocation context is present.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the required 'service' parameter at all. The schema's enum provides valid values (connects/blackboard), but the description adds no guidance about which service to pass or why it matters.

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 the action and resource: 'Check the active sign-in job.' It also adds a key distinguishing trait, 'does not open a browser,' and names a sibling tool for the later auth state, making the purpose 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?

It gives explicit routing guidance: after expiry, use ie_auth_status to detect a sign-in completed later. This tells the agent both when this tool is appropriate and when to switch to a specific alternative.

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