session_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It notes 'Free.' which is a behavioral cost disclosure. It does not mention side effects, authentication needs, or error conditions. The tool appears read-only and safe, but transparency could be improved with more detail on 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 extremely concise: two short sentences. The main action is front-loaded, and every word adds value. 'Free.' is a relevant behavioral note. No unnecessary fluff.

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 status-check tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and return data. It lacks mention of prerequisites (e.g., an active session) or behavior when no session exists, but these are minor omissions for a straightforward tool.

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?

There are no parameters, and the input schema is empty (100% coverage trivially). The description adds value beyond the schema by detailing what is checked and returned. Per guidelines, 0 parameters baseline is 4, and the description fulfills this.

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 explicitly states 'Check the current payment session' and lists the specific data returned (deposit address, deposited/spent/remaining KAS). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tool 'open_session', which creates a session, by focusing on status checking.

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 context is implied: this tool is for checking the status of an existing payment session. However, no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives are given. The presence of sibling 'open_session' hints at the workflow, but the description itself lacks direct guidance.

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