estado-de-sesion

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

With no annotations, the description does meaningful work: it discloses the 24-hour token lifetime and explicitly guarantees that no tokens or cookies are ever returned, which is exactly the kind of behavioral constraint an agent needs. It stops short of saying whether the call is side-effect free or whether it refreshes/extends the session, so it is good but not fully transparent.

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 compact sentence, front-loaded with the primary answer (session validity) and followed by the secondary payload and the security guarantee. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 parameterless, read-only status check with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential facts: what it reports, the token horizon, and what it will never expose. The absence of any hint about the returned shape (boolean vs. message, how CV state is represented) is the only real 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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is trivially empty, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; baseline 4 applies. No misleading parameter expectations are introduced.

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?

States a specific check: whether a Magneto session is active and the state of the 'hoja de vida', which an agent can distinguish from 'iniciar-sesion' (which presumably starts a session). It is clear but never names a sibling explicitly or clarifies the boundary with 'ver-mi-perfil' / 'listar-mis-cv', which also expose profile/CV state.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this to check login status before authenticated operations, but the description never says when to use it, when not to, or how it relates to 'iniciar-sesion'. No prerequisites or ordering guidance are given.

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