check_session_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It accurately conveys the core read/check behavior (inspecting wallet address, USDC balance, and session state), but it never explicitly states that the operation is side-effect-free, nor does it disclose what happens when the session is inactive (error vs. returned flag). Given the absence of annotations, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence states what the tool does; the second states when to use it. Both sentences earn their place and the most decision-relevant information (purpose) is front-loaded.

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 status-check tool, the description is nearly complete: it names what is checked and when to use it. The only gap is that, with no output schema present, it does not describe the return format (e.g., whether balance is returned as a string, whether session status is a boolean). This is a minor gap for such a simple 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 zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, which triggers the baseline of 4. The description correctly requires no parameter information because there is nothing to configure.

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 a specific action (check) on a specific resource (current wallet's address, USDC balance, and session active state). It is distinguishable from sibling status tools like get_arena_status or get_round_status because it focuses on wallet/session state, though it does not explicitly name those siblings to draw the contrast.

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 explicitly tells the agent WHEN to use this tool: 'before taking action to verify the session is active.' This is a clear, actionable trigger context. However, it does not name alternatives or exclusion conditions, which would have made it a 5.

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