Resolve console status

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations. It discloses that the tool never recovers ownership, never establishes authentication or human confirmation, never auto-confirms the macOS sharing choice, and that view-only limitations persist even after transport connects. No contradiction with the 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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and every subsequent sentence adds meaningful caveats or routing guidance. The description is dense and somewhat long for a zero-parameter refresh action, but the platform-specific warnings justify most of the length.

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?

The description explains the meaning of a 'ready' result, the operation's limitations, the macOS prerequisites, and the cancellation alternative, which is strong context given zero parameters and rich annotations. It does not spell out the exact response shape or possible status values beyond 'ready,' but that is a minor gap.

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 is trivially complete and there are no parameter descriptions needed. The description adds useful contextual semantics by referring to 'this session' and 'the owned lease,' which frames the scope of the operation. This is the appropriate baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 the specific action: 'Refresh this session's non-secret console-viewing status for the owned lease.' It clarifies this is read-only, never recovers ownership, and contrasts with viewer-launching behavior by noting it carries no screenshots and never establishes authentication or displayed pixels. The 'ready' status caveat further pins down exactly what the tool does and does not confirm.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Never replay an uncertain attempt: resolve it here, or close it with relay_console_cancel.' It also names the alternative tool and gives platform-specific prerequisites for macOS (Standard sharing of the existing console, not a new Log In session or High Performance display), so an agent knows how to interpret a successful resolution.

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