Verifica Sessione CIE

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds that the verification is performed 'navigando la BDP,' which clarifies the operation is a navigation (likely a read). It does not contradict the annotations. However, it does not provide additional context about side effects, authentication, or what 'BDP' entails, so it adds minimal value beyond the annotations.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no filler or redundant information, and it fully fits in one line. Every word adds value.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists), the description is sufficiently complete. It conveys what the tool does and how. It does not explain acronyms like BDP or what happens on session expiry, but with an output schema provided and annotations covering safety, these are minor omissions. It is adequate for the tool's scope.

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 baseline is 4. There are no parameters to describe, and the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps. The mention of 'navigando la BDP' is a behavioral action, not a parameter, so the score aligns with the zero-param baseline.

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 purpose: to verify if the CIE session is still active. It uses a specific verb ('verifica') and resource ('sessione CIE'), and the method ('navigando la BDP') adds distinctiveness. None of the sibling tools perform a session check, so it is well differentiated.

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 implies usage: when you need to confirm an active CIE session by navigating the BDP. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is limited to the implication that this is a session verification step.

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