check_session

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden and does well: it names the endpoint (/menu-api), the validation path (body.me.name), and the exact return object. The word 'Verifica' and the boolean 'authenticated' imply a non-mutating check, though it could have been more explicit about side effects and failure behavior.

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 deliver purpose, implementation mechanism, and return format with no wasted words. The most important information is front-loaded, and 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, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete: it tells the agent what the tool does, how it determines the result, and what it returns. An agent can select and invoke it correctly without additional documentation.

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 input schema is empty and there is nothing to document. The description still adds relevant context by explaining the response validation path and the returned fields, which is more than the schema alone provides.

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 states a specific action ('Verifica si hay sesión activa') with a clear resource (active session) and is readily distinguishable from siblings like open_login, send_message, and capture_start. It also includes the exact validation mechanism (body.me.name) and return shape, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 intended use is clear: call this tool when you need to know whether an active session exists. It does not explicitly name exclusion conditions or alternatives, but the purpose sentence is enough to route an agent correctly, especially next to open_login which handles the opposite concern.

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