Living Stack: session_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds context about the scope of what gets verified (lifecycle, budget, counts, ledger head) but no further behavioral traits such as error conditions or side effects, which is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with no filler; the verb and the four scoped aspects are packed into one clause. It is concise and front-loaded, though it lacks any structural cues for sibling selection.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is mostly adequate. The main gap is the unmet need to clarify when this tool should be chosen over overlapping siblings like livingstack.status and check_claim.

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% with session_id documented as 'Session identifier,' so the schema fully handles parameter semantics. The description adds no additional meaning about session_id, matching the baseline 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 uses the specific verb 'Verify' with the resource 'a session' and names concrete aspects (lifecycle, budget, counts, ledger head), making the tool's function clear and distinct from a tautology. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like livingstack.status or check_claim, but the listed scope provides enough specificity.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; siblings include livingstack.status and check_claim, which could plausibly overlap, yet none are mentioned or contrasted. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Verify' and the listed items, providing no explicit context or exclusions.

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