Check LINE Token Validity

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

The description discloses the HTTP method (GET), return fields, and critically, the error behavior: expired tokens return a LineApiError (401) rather than a valid/invalid boolean. The annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) are consistent and the description adds essential behavioral details beyond them.

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 well-organized with Args, Returns, Examples, and Errors sections. It is concise, front-loading the core purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. Ideal length for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 optional param, no output schema), the description covers all necessary details: purpose, usage context, return structure, and error handling. The included JSON example for return and error cases makes it self-sufficient for correct invocation.

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 single optional parameter 'oa' is described adequately, repeating the schema but also providing a default value and examples. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds some value with usage examples but not significantly beyond the schema.

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 it verifies the active OA's channel access token via a specific API, reports client_id, remaining lifetime, and granted scope. It is distinct from all siblings, which cover other LINE operations. The verb 'verify' and resource 'token' are well-defined.

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 advises using it before a campaign to avoid silent failures from mid-send expiration. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use, the context is clear and no sibling competes for the same purpose. Lacks explicit alternative mention, but the suggestion is sufficient.

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