Get Auth Status

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

With readOnlyHint=true in annotations, the description adds return fields (auth state, competing session flag, connection status), providing behavioral context beyond the read-only hint. No contradictions; minor gap is the lack of explanation of 'competing session flag,' but not critical.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, the first stating the purpose and the second listing return values. No wasted words or redundant 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 simple status tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and return values. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly, especially given the clear read-only annotation.

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 the baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on return values rather than parameter details, which are nonexistent. This fully compensates for the empty input 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 the tool's purpose: checking if the Client Portal Gateway is authenticated. It lists specific output elements (auth state, competing session flag, connection status), which distinguishes it from siblings like reauthenticate or ping_session.

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 use for verifying authentication status but does not explicitly state when to use it or mention alternatives. The agent must infer usage from the name and context, with no direct comparison to related tools.

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