alphaportal_session_status

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

The description explicitly notes that it returns no credentials, and it details the token resolution sources (env var, saved session, browser bridge). This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, which already indicates non-destructive behavior. No contradictions.

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 concise (two sentences), front-loaded with the core purpose, and each clause adds value. It is well-structured and avoids unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, no parameters, and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what it checks, how it resolves the token, and that it returns no credentials. No gaps remain for correct invocation.

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 is trivially covered. Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since none exist.

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's purpose: checking whether the server can authenticate to AlphaPortal by resolving a refresh token and attempting to mint an access token. It distinguishes itself from sibling data-access tools by focusing on session status rather than resource retrieval.

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 (check authentication status) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. Sibling tools are all data access, so the purpose is distinct, but the lack of explicit guidance prevents a higher score.

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