portal_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by enumerating what the call reports (current screen, inactivity minutes, log) and implying dependency on an already-open portal session — important since there is no output schema. It stops short of describing error behavior when no session exists or how large the log can be.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the three returned data points are listed compactly. The telegraphic style ('Maske', 'Protokoll') is slightly ambiguous but costs nothing in length.

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 parameterless, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential surface: what state is read and roughly what comes back. What remains unstated — behavior with no open session, the meaning of 'Protokoll', and whether values are live or cached — are modest gaps for a tool of this simplicity.

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 and there is no parameter meaning the description needs to supply. Nothing here adds to or conflicts with the empty schema.

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 names a specific resource set — the current screen of the open portal session, minutes since last activity, and the log — which lets an agent tell it apart from action-oriented siblings like portal_ausfuellen, ausfuellen_fortsetzen and portal_schliessen. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement, so the 'read status' framing is inferred rather than stated.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions for calling it, and no named alternative. The only steer is the implicit one in 'der offenen Portal-Sitzung', which hints that an open session is a prerequisite, but the agent has to derive that itself.

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