session_status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful detail about what status information is returned, but it does not clarify return format, metric definitions, or any other behavioral context beyond the basic contents.

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 phrase with zero waste, front-loading the core concept of store health followed by the key metrics. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter status tool.

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 status tool with no output schema, the description gives a useful high-level list of returned information. However, terms like 'size' and 'counts' remain ambiguous, and the lack of usage guidance leaves the agent to infer when this tool is the right choice.

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 correctly does not introduce unnecessary parameter discussion.

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 identifies the resource as store health and names the specific metrics reported: size, counts, interrupted sessions, and estimated tokens. It is clear enough to distinguish this as a status-inspection tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_audit_trail or list_claims.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as resume_session, list_claims, or get_audit_trail. The name and description imply status checking, but the definition leaves usage entirely to inference.

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