auth_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which cover the safety profile. The description adds that the tool checks session validity and reports the logged-in user, but it does not describe failure behavior, return formatting, or whether network calls are made. Some value is added, but the description does not carry substantial extra behavioral detail.

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 a single, compact sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource and gives the two key outputs. There is no wasted wording or repetition of schema information.

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, the description is sufficient to understand the tool's purpose and likely output. It does not specify the exact return structure, but the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool make that less critical.

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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema is complete. With no parameters to describe, the description correctly focuses on behavior instead of 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?

The description clearly states the specific action (check) and the resource (NYU Brightspace session), and explicitly identifies what the tool reports (session health and current user). This is distinct from sibling tools like login or course getters.

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 implies the tool should be used to verify that the session is valid and identify the logged-in user, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like login, or give conditions for use. Context is clear but no exclusions or routing guidance are provided.

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