session_info

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the transparency burden. It discloses behavior such as login restored from disk, the token being masked, how native_tools is used for comparison, the consequence of an empty baseline, and an environment variable fix—far beyond a simple output description.

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 two well-structured paragraphs: first establishes purpose and immediate usage, second adds a critical operational caveat. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler.

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 utility with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what is reported, when to invoke it, how to interpret login state, and how to remediate a missing native_tools baseline, giving the agent everything needed to act.

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 the description does not need to explain parameter syntax. It does describe the returned fields and interpretation, which adds value over the empty schema and meets the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 specifies the tool's function: showing the MCP session's connection state and enumerating exact fields (base URL, login status, account email/user_id, masked token, coordinator). 'Call this first' establishes its unique role among sibling tools, distinguishing it from health, whoami, and connect_info.

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?

Provides explicit usage timing: 'Call this first — if logged_in is true you can go straight to recommend/execute.' It also tells when the user does NOT need to log in again, and includes troubleshooting advice for empty native_tools, making usage conditions and next steps clear.

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