linkedin_check_session

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states the check itself but does not explicitly confirm it is non-mutating or describe the return format. The login-wall context implies safety, but the description lacks explicit boundary details. It does not contradict anything, but could be more transparent about side effects.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The purpose is stated first, and the second sentence adds valuable context about why this tool matters. Every word earns its place.

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 check with no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what the tool does and why it's important before other tools. It is complete and self-sufficient.

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 is already complete (100% coverage). Baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since there are none to document.

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?

Clearly states a specific verb ('check') and resource ('whether the browser is signed in to LinkedIn'). The description distinguishes it from sibling tools by its unique purpose—session verification—and adds context about the login wall, making it unambiguous what this tool does.

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?

Explicitly states that 'every other tool needs this to be true,' implying it should be called before other LinkedIn operations. This provides clear usage context. It does not list exclusions or alternatives, but given its singular nature, the guidance is sufficient.

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