session_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the output fields, giving useful insight into what is reported. However, it does not state whether this is a local read-only operation, whether it makes network calls, or how it behaves in an unauthenticated state. This is a moderate disclosure gap for a status-checking tool.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb 'Report' and then lists all relevant data points. Every word earns its place and there is zero redundancy.

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, parameterless tool, the description sufficiently covers the main output dimensions. It does not specify return format or failure modes, but given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description is largely complete. The main gap is the missing usage context relative to status_summary.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining exactly what is reported, which effectively serves as output semantics. Since there are no parameters to describe, no additional parameter explanation 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Report' and clearly enumerates the exact data points (git token present, session cookie present, last sync time, project count, workspace count). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_projects or sync_projects, which focus on different aspects of the project workspace.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Since there is a sibling tool called status_summary that likely overlaps in purpose, the absence of explicit usage context or exclusions leaves the agent guessing about when to choose this tool.

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