fs_session

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful context about the dedicated Chrome instance and what status reports, but it does not disclose side effects or return behavior of open_login, such as whether it opens a new browser page or returns immediately.

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 one compact sentence, front-loaded with the tool's domain and then covering both action options. Every clause earns its place and there is no redundant restating of schema information.

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 single-parameter enum tool with read-only annotations and no output schema, this description is largely sufficient. It explains both actions and their purposes, but it could be more complete by clarifying what open_login returns or how the status result identifies the user.

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 schema provides only an enum with no per-value descriptions (coverage 0%). The description fully compensates by explaining both allowed values: status checks login state and user identity, while open_login opens the sign-in page. An agent can select the correct action without additional inference.

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 identifies the tool's domain (FamilySearch login session) and gives each action a concrete behavior: status reports signed-in state and user identity, open_login opens the sign-in page. This is clear, though the overall purpose is expressed through the action descriptions rather than a single overarching verb+resource phrase.

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 action descriptions provide clear situational guidance: use status to check whether the dedicated Chrome is signed in, and use open_login to start the sign-in flow. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like raw_request, but the dedicated-Chrome session scope makes the intended context reasonably clear.

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