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 burden. The verb 'Return' signals a read-only operation, which is the key behavioral trait. It does not detail failure modes or output format, but for a benign status endpoint this disclosure is adequate and does not contradict any annotations.

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 sentence, front-loads the action ('Return'), and contains zero filler words. Every word contributes to understanding.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main purpose. It doesn't specify the exact structure of the returned status, but for a low-complexity status check this high-level summary is reasonably complete.

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 schema coverage is 100% (irrelevant here). The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly does not attempt to explain parameters that do not exist.

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 'Return' and clearly specifies the resource: 'local EasyEDA MCP bridge status and connected editor windows.' Although there are no sibling tools, the purpose is unambiguous and fully distinguishes this as a status-checking operation.

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?

With no sibling tools, explicit alternative guidance is unnecessary. The description clearly implies this is the tool to call when you need to inspect the bridge status and connected windows. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' statements, but the context is sufficiently clear for a zero-parameter status tool.

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