session_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the ~8h expiry window, that it can report in-progress login or install operations, and that it returns a plain-language next step — which tells the agent this is a diagnostic, not a mutator.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the enumerated fields, then the directive to call it first on session failures. The single long sentence is dense but every clause maps to a real returned datum. Slightly heavy for one sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating all reported fields plus the actionable next step. For a zero-parameter read-only diagnostic, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; baseline 4 applies. The schema is empty and consistent with the description, which describes an argument-free status probe.

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?

States a specific resource (connection state with the Campus) and enumerates exactly what it reports: active session, time since saved, browser installed, in-progress login/install, and next step. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like whoami, start_login, or install_browser without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit triggering condition: use it first when a query fails due to an expired session. That's clear placement guidance. It stops short of naming the follow-up alternatives (start_login, install_browser) that its own output presumably points to, so it isn't a full when/when-not/alternative map.

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