status

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

There are no annotations, so the description bears the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the call is cheap, that it should be first, and what state categories it reports. It does not explicitly say the operation is read-only, but the content list strongly implies inspection rather than mutation.

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 compact, front-loaded sentences cover content and usage guidance without any fluff. Every clause adds information, and the 'cheap; call first' guidance is easy to parse.

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 status tool with no output schema, the description adequately enumerates the expected contents: session state with possible values, model label, project, and open chat tabs. The call-first hint completes the picture for an agent deciding when to invoke it.

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 parameter semantics are trivially satisfied. The description adds useful context about what the status covers, and no parameter documentation is needed.

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 identifies the tool as reporting session state, model label, project, and open chat tabs. Although it lacks an explicit verb, the resource and data scope are unmistakable and it is distinguished from sibling tools by being a status/state snapshot.

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 phrase 'Cheap; call first' provides clear operational guidance: this tool should be invoked early because it is inexpensive. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but for a status tool the directive to call first is sufficient context.

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