session_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a JSON summary with a human-readable display_text and surfaces specific risk factors (state drift from GUI edits, non-atomic steps), which is meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple status read. It does not explicitly state that it is read-only, but 'Show' implies no side effects.

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, only two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the tool's primary content, and the second clarifies the return format. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant or irrelevant information.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and even highlights risks that are not visible from the schema or annotations. No significant gaps exist for the intended use case.

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 zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage, so there is nothing to document. The description adds no parameter-level detail because none is needed. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies.

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 with a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('active session'), and enumerates the contents: step count, document state, next-step suggestions, and risks. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like session_get_steps, which focus on individual steps, by framing it as a comprehensive status summary.

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 implies usage: call it when you need a snapshot of the active session's progress and risks. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives such as session_get_steps for more granular step details. This is a clear but unstated usage context.

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