peoplehub_session

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that the tool is a read-only check (verifica) and explicitly notes that no sensitive data is involved, which is useful safety-relevant context. It could add what happens when no session exists, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then provides endpoint-level detail. Every part is informative and there is no 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 parameterless, low-complexity tool, the description conveys the purpose, the endpoints called, and a privacy-relevant property. The lack of output schema is a minor gap, but the tool's behavior is simple enough that an agent can successfully invoke it based on this description.

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 coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics missing. The description appropriately adds no parameter details because none are 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 a specific verb ('Verifica') and names the exact resources it consults (/api/auth/session-check and /api/auth/user). This clearly identifies the tool as a session validation utility and distinguishes it from sibling tools like peoplehub_login or the list tools.

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 condition 'si hay sesión guardada' makes the intended use context clear: check for an existing session before other operations. It does not explicitly name exclusions or alternatives, but sibling names and the session-check purpose provide enough guidance.

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