skydemon_session_status

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

With no annotations present, the description does real work: it discloses that the state is *cached* (a read of stored state, not a live re-validation) and that the response is deliberately masked to a token tail. Both are behavioral facts an agent could not derive from the empty schema. It omits auth/permission requirements and the exact return shape, keeping it out of the 5 range.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the most useful clause (cached, not live) sits first. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it does and the security-relevant detail about the token. The only gap is the concrete return shape, which an agent must guess at since no output schema exists.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds nothing parameter-related, which is appropriate since there is nothing to describe.

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 verb and resource ('show ... cached login state') and distinguishes the operation from the login/logout siblings by framing it as a state read rather than an action. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling or contrasting behavior, so it lands just below the top of the scale.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the call for checking whether a session exists, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite, and no mention of alternatives such as skydemon_login when no cached state is found. No guidance is wrong, but nothing is spelled out.

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