Check login session

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the files inspected (~/.waas-mcp/storage-state.json or cookie.txt), which adds some context, but it does not state whether the tool is read-only, what output it produces, or how it indicates success/failure. For a status check tool, this is notably incomplete.

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?

A single concise sentence front-loads the action and resource, with the file path detail in a parenthetical. No wasted words; every element 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the agent can expect from the call or when to use it, but it does not. The tool is simple, yet leaving out the return/status semantics and usage context makes it under-specified for an agent deciding how to act on the result.

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, so the schema already covers everything. Baseline 4 for zero params is appropriate; the description adds no parameter information, but none is 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?

States a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('Work at a Startup login session'), and even names the underlying storage files. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like waas_search or waas_get_job, which perform entirely different actions.

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?

No guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives. It does not state that this should be used as a prerequisite before other waas tools, nor does it mention any conditions for usage. The agent is left to infer context from the name.

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