get_wrap_up_session_status

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses two non-obvious behaviors: long-unupdated running records are *projected* as stale_running without mutating the record, and the response deliberately omits summary text and local project paths. That is genuine added context rather than restatement of the annotation flags.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good, but the entire description is duplicated verbatim in Chinese and English, doubling length without adding a single new fact. The remaining sentences mix purpose, trigger condition, and response exclusions into one block without separation.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with a rich annotation set and an output schema, the description covers trigger, inputs, staleness projection, and output omissions well. The only real hole is the empty-arguments / conflicting-arguments case, which an agent could plausibly hit given zero required parameters.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does explain the provenance of each parameter: idempotency_key is caller-known before the call, operation_id is one previously returned. However, with zero required parameters it never states what happens when both are empty or both are supplied, leaving the disambiguation and conflict behavior unaddressed.

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?

Opening sentence states a specific verb and resource ('read metadata-only stage status for a wrap_up_session operation') and names the sibling operation it belongs to, so an agent can immediately distinguish it from wrap_up_session itself. The scope is further narrowed ('metadata-only', 'no summary text or local project path') rather than left as a generic 'status' tool.

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 gives an explicit triggering condition ('after a session-closeout transport timeout') and tells the caller which identifiers to supply depending on what they have on hand. It does not say when NOT to call it (e.g., while the operation is still in flight, or before ever calling wrap_up_session), so it is clear context without full exclusions.

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