session_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Inspect' clearly signals a read-only operation with no mutation side effects, and the listed state fields provide useful context beyond the tool name. It does not discuss failure modes, but none are strongly expected for a status inspection tool.

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 front-loaded sentence that conveys purpose and output substance without filler. Every word earns its place, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 and an existing output schema, the description is largely complete by listing the three state dimensions it inspects. The only notable gap is that it does not clarify the relationship or distinction from the sibling session_history tool, which could matter for tool selection.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are essentially moot. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4.

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 ('Inspect') with a clear resource ('session state') and enumerates three concrete aspects: project loaded, modified flag, history depth. This makes the tool's purpose immediately unambiguous and distinct from mutation-oriented siblings like session_undo and session_history.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as session_history, session_undo_step, or session_redo_step. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the tool name and description.

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