session_status

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which aligns with the description's 'Return' verb and adds no contradiction. The description adds value by specifying the exact status fields returned, providing context beyond the bare read-only annotation. No side effects or additional behavior are mentioned, but for a simple read tool the added field list is sufficient context.

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, compact sentence that conveys the tool's purpose without any fluff or unnecessary detail. It is front-loaded with the core function and uses precise terminology, making it highly scannable.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and an output schema present, the description adequately covers the return categories and implies the tool is a status getter. However, the lack of parameter explanation and any mention of when to use it detracts from completeness. Overall, it's sufficient for a straightforward status endpoint but not fully self-contained.

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 single required parameter project_id has no description in either the schema (0% coverage) or the tool description. The description does not explain what project_id represents or how it affects the status returned, leaving the agent to infer its purpose from the name alone. This is a significant gap given the low schema coverage.

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 returns specific status aspects (revision, dirty state, undo/redo depth, program-scope integrity) using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by naming these particular fields, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, so it earns a 4.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other status-related siblings like project_summary or get_program_context. It only states what it returns, leaving usage context entirely implied.

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