persistence_status

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: the state is process-wide and shared across sessions in streamable-HTTP deployments, which is beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add important context about scope. No unnecessary 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?

Given no output schema, the description could explicitly state the response structure (e.g., `{paused, ttl_remaining}`), but it clearly conveys what is reported and the TTL unit. Adequate for a simple status tool.

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 input schema has no parameters (coverage 100%), so the description need not add parameter details. The description focuses on output semantics, which 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 reports whether persistence is paused and the TTL remaining in seconds. It specifies process-wide scope, distinguishing it from siblings like pause_persistence and resume_persistence.

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 explains the scope (process-wide) and notes that `paused: true` may be set by another session in streamable-HTTP deployments. While it does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives, the context is clear for a status check tool.

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