session_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose a non-obvious trait: login is restored from disk across sessions. It also reveals the token is masked and names observable return fields (`logged_in`, `native_tools`), though it never explicitly states the operation is read-only or describes failure behavior.

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 dense but front-loaded, leading with what is shown before the routing advice. Every clause maps to a distinct output field or a decision rule, though the packed enumeration makes it slightly harder to scan than a cleanly separated structure would.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover the return surface, and it does list the key fields an agent will act on. It omits the exact response shape and any error or edge-case behavior (e.g., router down handling), which leaves a small remaining gap.

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 schema declares zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter guidance is needed or missing.

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 names the exact resource ('the connection') and enumerates precisely what it reports: router status, login state, account, masked token, MCP version, and declared coordinator. It also implicitly separates the tool from the 'login' and 'connect_info' siblings by explaining that login state is already shown and does not need to be re-established.

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?

It gives a concrete routing rule: 'If `logged_in` is true go straight to `recommend`/`execute`; the user does NOT need to log in again,' which is an explicit when-to-use and a when-not-to-use (don't call login). It stops short of stating when in a workflow session_info should be called first versus connect_info, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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