ponisha_session_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content beyond that by hinting at the return payload (login state plus token origin), but with no output schema it stops short of describing the actual fields or what 'where the token comes from' resolves to.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every clause earns its place by naming both halves of the reported result.

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, read-only status probe with no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly and anticipate the shape of the answer. It loses a point only because the returned token-source values are never enumerated or exemplified.

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, which is the cleanest possible case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline of 4 applies since no parameter meaning is needed.

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 verb and resource: reporting whether the MCP server is logged in to Ponisha and the provenance of the token. Clear enough to separate it from the ponisha_login_* and ponisha_logout siblings, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with ponisha_get_me, the other tool an agent might reach for when asking 'who am I'.

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 this is a pre-flight auth check, but the description never says when to call it (e.g., before authenticated operations) or when not to (e.g., use login tools when logged out). No alternatives are named.

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