tv_auth_session_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Show' signals a read-only operation, and 'saved session' hints that it inspects persisted credentials rather than performing live authentication. However, it does not disclose what happens without a saved session, whether it makes network calls, or what the returned status looks like.

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. The verb, resource, and tool family are all front-loaded, and every word contributes to selecting and invoking the 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 zero-parameter status tool, this is mostly complete: it names the subject, the operation, and the relevant tool family, and there is no invocation syntax to explain. It is slightly thin on return semantics—what 'status' actually contains—and has no annotation safety context, but the low complexity keeps this gap modest.

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 and an empty schema, so there is nothing for the description to document. Baseline 4 applies; the description adds useful context by identifying exactly whose session status this reports, which is all the semantic enrichment needed here.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and a specific resource ('saved TradingView authenticated session status'), and ties the tool to the tv_auth_* family. This clearly distinguishes it from the many session-mutation siblings like tv_auth_session_start, tv_auth_session_clear, and the generic status tools in the sibling list.

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 'used by tv_auth_* tools' implies this is the status check to consult before relying on those tools, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as data_source_status or avanza_sessions. The usage context is present but only implied.

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