alphaportal_session_status

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

Annotations only mark readOnlyHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it reveals the refresh token sources, the access-token minting attempt, and explicitly warns that no credentials are returned. This gives the agent important expectation management and protects against accidentally treating the tool as credential-returning.

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, well-structured sentence with front-loaded purpose and a concise explanation of the mechanism. Every clause adds necessary detail, and there is no filler.

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 no-argument, read-only status tool, the description covers the purpose, the authentication flow, and the key caveat that no credentials are returned. It does not spell out the exact success/failure return shape, but the absence of parameters and output schema makes that a minor gap for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics by default. The description still adds helpful contextual information about where the refresh token comes from, though these are environment/bridge details rather than call 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 clearly states a specific diagnostic action: checking whether the server can authenticate to AlphaPortal. It goes on to explain the token resolution process and access-token minting, which differentiates this from the sibling tools that handle students, buses, notifications, or settings.

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 makes the tool's context unmistakable: it is a no-argument session/authentication health check. None of the sibling tools overlap with this purpose, so no exclusions are necessary; however, the description does not explicitly say 'use when you need to verify connectivity or credentials.'

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