session_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context. It indicates a read-only status check (no mutating actions) and lists the data points (URL, title, tab alive). This is adequate for such a simple query, though it doesn't explicitly state it has no side effects or mention failure modes.

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, concise sentence that fully conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and free of fluff, earning a perfect score.

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?

For a simple status check with no parameters, the description covers the key output fields (URL, title, tab liveness). It doesn't mention potential edge cases (e.g., what happens if no session exists), but the output schema likely clarifies that. Given the simplicityainer, this is complete enough.

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)Skip. With no parameters to explain, the baseline is 4. The description adds no additional parameter semantics since none exist, which is appropriate. Schema coverage is 100% (vacuously).

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 reports session status including URL, title, and tab liveness. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like session_navigate (navigation), session_text (page text), or session_links (links).

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 implies usage for checking session state but does not explicitly mention when to use it instead of other session tools (e.g., session_text for content, session_links for URLs). No exclusion criteria or alternative guidance is provided.

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