session_status

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so it is clear this is a safe, read-only operation. The description adds no further behavioral context beyond that, such as what status information is returned or how authentication state is determined. It does not contradict annotations; it's just sparse given the annotations do heavy lifting.

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 clear sentence in Japanese, front-loaded and concise. It earns its place by stating both product (Proton Pass) and context (pass-cli). No extra words.

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 with clear annotations, the purpose description is largely complete. A minor gap is not describing what the status output looks like, but with no output schema and a merely intended 'check', the core is covered. Since it uses a Japanese sentence and no usage guidance, a complete score would demand slightly more.

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 there is no parameter burden. The description's role is only to clarify purpose, which it does. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 'Proton Pass pass-cliの既存認証セッションを確認する' states a specific verb (確認/check) and resource (existing authentication session) for the Proton Pass CLI. It distinguishes this tool from the sibling tools, which all deal with vaults, shares, items, notes, and fields—none of which indicate session handling.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs the alternatives. It doesn't mention whether this should be called before listing vaults or performing other operations, and it doesn't name any excluded scenarios or alternative tools. The context is implied only through the verb and resource.

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