get_mytu_login_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context beyond annotations by specifying the exact resource (My TU Delft login progress) and that it is process-bound ('this process's'), which is not in the schema or annotations. It does not contradict any annotation and provides useful behavioral context for a read-only status check.

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 two short sentences that are front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately follow with the routing guidance. Every word earns its place—no filler or repetition of the tool name or schema.

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, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what the tool reads, scopes it to the current process, and directs to the proper alternative for a related but distinct need. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 nothing to explain. With no parameters, the baseline is 4 since there is no parameter information to provide; the description correctly omits parameter details that don't exist.

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 ('Read'), a clear resource ('this process's My TU Delft login progress'), and scopes it to the current process. It distinguishes from sibling status tools like get_login_status and check_mytu_auth by naming the alternative and its purpose, making the tool's role 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?

The description explicitly instructs when to use a different tool: 'Use check_mytu_auth to verify a saved login.' This gives a clear alternative and implies that this tool is for checking progress, not verifying credentials. It effectively tells an agent when to pick this tool over its sibling, fulfilling the usage guidance dimension.

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