ios_session_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific pieces of information returned, but does not disclose potential prerequisites such as requiring an open session or error behavior when no session exists. This is acceptable given the simple read-only nature, but no extra behavioral context is provided.

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 sentence with the verb front-loaded ('Report') followed by a concise, scannable list of reported fields. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema available, the description provides sufficient context to select and invoke the tool. It states the exact scope of the report, and the output schema can handle any detail about return values. 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 tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100% by definition. The description correctly omits parameter details as there are none to explain, matching the baseline of 4 for parameterless tools.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('current session'), then enumerates the key contents (device, foreground app, safety state). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like ios_open_session, ios_close_session, and ios_launch_app by indicating it is a read-only status query.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: whenever the current session details are needed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the read-only reporting context is unambiguous, especially compared to mutation-focused siblings like ios_set_device_state or ios_set_permission.

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