Account session status

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: no website request by default, stored sessions do not imply authentication, verify=true checks a read-only endpoint, credentials/cookies are never returned, and login requires an external command. This aligns with readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true.

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 efficient and front-loaded, with each sentence earning its place. It is slightly dense due to four distinct points, but remains clear and free of 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 tool with one optional parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the key agent needs: default behavior, verification option, credential safety, and the required login flow. Nothing essential is missing.

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 schema describes verify only as a boolean with a default of false, and there is no parameter description. The description compensates by explaining that verify=true triggers a check of a read-only protected endpoint, and that no request is made by default.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Inspect the local encrypted account session.' It distinguishes the tool's focus (auth status) from the sibling tools focused on apps, releases, and categories.

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?

It explains when the tool makes a network request and when it does not, tells the agent to use verify=true for a read-only endpoint check, and explicitly instructs that login must happen via the user's terminal command, not in chat. This is direct usage guidance with clear exclusions.

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