login_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return format ('Returns JSON') plus a meaningful safety property: it never contains a cookie value. It does not state that the call is read-only/side-effect free, nor any auth or permission requirements, which matters for a login-related 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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded: the content of the status report first, the invocation trigger second. Every clause carries information — the enumerated report contents, the trigger, and the privacy guarantee.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description usefully summarizes them anyway; with zero parameters there is no schema burden. The only gap is the absence of any statement about side effects or permissions, which the annotations would otherwise have supplied.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly spends no words on arguments and instead describes the result set.

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 names the exact resource and enumerates what it reports: kept sites, whether the session may copy logins, which sites it copied, and the scratch folder location. That is far more specific than the bare name 'login_status' and clearly separates it from login_signin/login_kill. The proprietary term 'searchts' is never defined, which slightly blurs the resource being described.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: 'Call this when a read_url error mentions a login,' naming the sibling tool that produces that error. The phrase 'before asking for anything' implies the ordering relative to login_signin, though it never states outright when not to use this tool or what login_status is not for.

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