Check Authentication Status

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only. The description adds useful behavioral context: the tool checks authentication status and requires prior authentication via a separate command. It doesn't describe what happens when unauthenticated, but the readOnlyHint covers the safety profile and the trigger conditions are clear.

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?

Three short sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is stated first, then the prerequisite, then concrete trigger scenarios. Every sentence 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 zero-parameter, read-only auth check with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, how to prepare, and when to invoke it. No meaningful gaps remain.

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 there is nothing for the description to explain about parameters. The baseline of 4 for no parameters is appropriate, and the description appropriately focuses on purpose and usage rather than parameter details.

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 action ('Check if you are authenticated') and a specific resource ('Brightspace'). The sibling tools are all data-retrieval tools for courses, grades, etc., so this auth-check tool is clearly distinguishable.

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?

Explicitly lists when to use the tool: when the user asks if they're logged in, if authentication is working, or when other tools return auth errors. Also provides the prerequisite action ('Run `pnpm run auth` first'). This is exemplary usage guidance.

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