session_status

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

Although no annotations are provided, the description implies a read-only operation with 'Get' and explains the return content. It does not mention side effects, authorization, or rate limits, but for a status query, the behavioral traits are sufficiently clear.

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 sentences, no unnecessary words. The first sentence defines what the tool does and returns, the second provides usage context. Every part earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: what the tool returns and when to use it. It is complete for a simple status-checking 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?

The tool has no parameters, so the description does not need to elaborate on them. According to the guidelines, 0 parameters leads to a baseline score of 4.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Get the current evaluation session status' and lists specific information returned (evaluations run, frameworks, verdict history, stability indicators). This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on running evaluations or analyzing code.

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 description includes a usage hint: 'Useful for understanding what the tribunal has already reviewed.' This provides context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any alternative tools for similar purposes.

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