status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it discloses that calls are cheap, that closed sessions report CLOSED with last values, and that a blocking call may be waiting. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or side-effect free, but the nature of status reporting makes that largely implicit.

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 compact and front-loaded: it first enumerates what status reveals, then notes polling cost, then points config decisions to siblings. Every sentence provides useful information with 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?

Given an output schema, the description need not explain return values. It still covers the important behavioral edge cases (closed sessions, blocking calls, repeated polling) and routes config-related needs away from this tool. For a one-parameter status tool, nothing essential 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 single 'session' parameter is fully described in the schema as the id returned by open. The description does not add syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies for high schema coverage.

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 precisely what the tool reports: session state, cancelling flag, config values, pending approvals/questions, and blocking-call waits. It also distinguishes its scope from config-related siblings (open, set_config, snapshot). For a broadly named 'status' tool, this is specific and actionable.

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 clearly supports repeated polling ('Cheap to call repeatedly') and redirects config inspection to open, set_config, and snapshot. It does not explicitly route pending approvals/questions to approve, answer, or reject, so the alternative-selection guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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