enabiz_session_status

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

Annotations already declare `readOnlyHint=true` and `openWorldHint=true`, covering safety. Description adds behavioral context: it performs a lightweight verification request and outlines the next steps if the session is invalid, which is beyond what annotations provide.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence is informative and there is no wasted text.

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 zero parameters, an existing output schema, and clear annotations, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, behavior, and usage flow. It is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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?

No parameters in the schema (0 params), so baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by explaining the returned `authenticated` field and its implications, compensating for the lack of parameters.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns current e-Nabız session and configuration status. The verb 'returns' and specific resource 'session and configuration status' make it unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling tools which handle data retrieval or login flows.

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?

Description explains when the `authenticated` field indicates the session is valid, and if false, directs to use `enabiz_login_start` followed by `enabiz_login_verify`. This provides clear context for usage but does not explicitly list other sibling tools as alternatives.

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