validate_session

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool validates session activity but doesn't explain what 'active and working' entails (e.g., returns status codes, error messages, or session details). It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or potential side effects, which is a gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the essential information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool's purpose (session validation) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the validation entails, what output to expect (e.g., success/failure indicators), or how it integrates with other tools. For a session-related tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its role and behavior.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately avoids unnecessary details. A baseline of 4 is applied as it handles the lack of parameters correctly without confusion.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Validate that the LinkedIn session cookie is still active and working.' It specifies the verb 'validate' and the resource 'LinkedIn session cookie,' making the action explicit. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools, which are primarily data retrieval or messaging tools, so it doesn't fully differentiate in context.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a session cookie first), exclusions, or how it relates to sibling tools like authentication or session management tools. This leaves usage context unclear.

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