check_coros_auth

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the token/env var source and implies no side effects, but it does not disclose what the check actually does (e.g., whether it validates token expiry or simply checks presence) or what an agent should expect as a result.

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 no redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does and the source of the authentication state.

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 existence check, the description is nearly complete. It identifies the purpose and data source, and the sibling list establishes the broader COROS workflow. It could briefly state the expected boolean outcome, but the verb 'Check if' already implies a yes/no result.

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 are zero parameters, so there is nothing for the schema to document and little for the description to clarify. The description appropriately mentions the implicit inputs (stored token or env vars), which is meaningful context beyond the empty 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 names a specific verb ('Check'), a clear resource ('COROS authentication availability'), and the source of that availability ('stored token or env vars'). This distinguishes it from sibling authenticate_coros, which actually performs authentication rather than checking it.

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 makes it clear this is a pre-flight check for COROS auth, and the sibling authenticate_coros implies what to do if auth is missing. However, it does not explicitly state 'use this before COROS operations' or 'use authenticate_coros if this returns false,' leaving the routing to inference.

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