get_recovery_session_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing on top of that: it does not say what happens if the session_id is unknown, whether status is transient, or what the response contains, even though there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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 core sentence is short and front-loaded, which is good. But the appended 'Args: session_id: The session_id to query.' block is pure duplication of the schema and consumes roughly half the text without adding 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 read tool this is thin: with no output schema, the description is the only place that could explain what status values or fields come back, and it does not. An agent knows what to pass but not what it will receive.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the sole parameter is documented in the schema. The description's 'Args:' block merely restates that same text verbatim, adding no format hints (e.g., where a session_id comes from or whether it expires). Baseline 3 applies when the schema already carries the meaning.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the current status of a recovery session.' An agent can immediately tell this is a read of session status. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from the many recovery-related siblings (get_recovery_plan, get_recovery_strategy_stats, get_recovery_statistics, plan_failure_recovery), and never says what 'status' means.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g., a recovery session must already exist), and no mention of alternative tools. In a cluster of dozens of recovery tools, the agent is left to infer which one applies.

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