session_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral transparency. It indicates that the tool returns status information (status, counts, Elo spread, budget, existence of final overview) but does not disclose whether it is read-only (presumably yes), any side effects, or whether it blocks. It provides useful detail on the returned data but could be more explicit about non-mutating behavior, especially given it is a polling tool.

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 sentence that efficiently enumerates all key metrics and ends with a clear purpose statement. Every part contributes value, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose. No fluff, perfect length.

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?

Given the low complexity (single parameter, no output schema) and the rich list of returned metrics in the description, the description is fairly complete for an agent to understand what to expect. It lacks details on return format or error handling, but for a polling tool, this is sufficient. The provided info covers the essential data points, so a 4 is warranted.

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 schema description coverage is 100% (session_id is described as 'Session id, e.g. ses_01J...'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond that. Since the schema already covers the parameter, the baseline is 3, and the description does not add extra meaning, so this score is appropriate.

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 function: reporting progress for a single session, with specific metrics listed. It distinguishes itself from siblings like session_list (which lists sessions) and overview_get (which gets the final overview) by focusing on session status polling. It could be more explicit about being a read-only status check, but the purpose is clear.

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 explicitly states 'This is the polling tool,' which is a clear usage guideline for when to use this tool (for polling status). It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, but it implies a monitoring context rather than a control context, distinguishing it from session_pause/abort/start. The context is somewhat clear, but exclusions are not spelled out.

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