neurover_auth_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety and network reach are covered. The description adds useful behavioral context - no credentials or browser needed, i.e. it never triggers a login flow - but says nothing about what the result looks like or whether it can fail with a network error.

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 short sentence with no filler; the key qualifier (no login, no browser) is present and nothing is redundant. It is arguably too terse rather than too verbose, but structurally sound and front-loaded.

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?

The tool itself is simple and the annotations cover its safety profile, so the description is close to complete for invoking it. Because there is no output schema, the description should have said what 'active' returns (boolean, expiry, account identity), and it should have explained the 'account' parameter - those two gaps keep it at adequate rather than complete.

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 is one optional parameter, 'account', with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. An agent cannot tell whether 'account' scopes the check to a named session or is ignored, leaving the single input entirely unexplained in both schema and prose.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: check whether the session is active. The qualifier 'without login and without browser' implicitly separates it from the sibling auth tools neurover_login and neurover_browser_login, so an agent can tell it apart without opening a schema, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 implied by 'without login and without browser' - this is the cheap pre-check before triggering a real login - but the description never explicitly says when to prefer it over neurover_accounts or neurover_login. The agent must infer that this is the non-interactive session probe.

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