alexa_session_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful behavior context beyond that: it enumerates the reported fields and states that no network call is made, which reinforces and clarifies the openWorldHint=false annotation rather than contradicting it.

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, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the disambiguation against the sibling immediately after. Every clause carries 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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what will be reported (registration, origin, Amazon site, cookie age) and that the call is purely local. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 per the rubric; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description's enumeration of reported fields adds some value, but it is about output, not parameters.

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 uses a specific verb (report) on a specific resource (this Alexa server's configuration) and enumerates exactly what is reported: registration presence, its origin, the Amazon site, and session cookie age. It also names the sibling it must not be confused with (alexa_healthcheck), so an agent can distinguish the two without opening a schema.

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 explicitly contrasts itself with the nearest alternative: this tool makes NO network call, whereas alexa_healthcheck verifies Amazon still accepts the session. That contrast gives the agent a clear selection rule (inspect local configuration vs. validate live session) rather than leaving usage to inference.

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