Session status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful operational disclosure beyond that: the tool reveals whether the extension is connected, surfaces a pairing code when pairing is required, and reports traffic mode, budget use and cooldown — all conditions an agent must know about before trusting other calls. It does not say what the response shape looks like, but with no output schema the enumeration of returned facts largely covers that.

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?

One dense sentence plus a two-word directive — front-loaded, no filler, every listed item is a distinct piece of state an agent needs. Slightly list-heavy and "any cooldown" is a touch vague, but nothing is wasted.

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-param, no-output-schema status tool the description is close to self-sufficient: it tells the agent what state it will learn and that it should be called first. The main residual gap is that it doesn't say what to do when the extension is disconnected or pairing is pending, which is the practical reason an agent would read this.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing for the description to explain; baseline is 4.

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?

States a specific verb ("Shows") and a concrete resource with the exact facts returned: connection state, pairing code, active salon, enabled write tools, traffic mode, budget use, cooldown. This clearly separates it from every sibling, which are all domain-data listers. It stops short of a single crisp one-line purpose statement, reading more as a return-value inventory, so not a 5.

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?

"Start here." is an explicit directive about ordering, which gives the agent real usage guidance for an entry-point tool. However, it names no conditions, no exclusions, and no alternatives from the large sibling set, so the guidance is implied rather than spelled out.

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