session_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Return" implies a read, but it does not state whether the call is safe/idempotent, what happens when the session_id is unknown or expired, whether authentication is needed, or whether the returned state is cached or live.

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 zero filler, which is appropriate for a one-parameter read tool. It is slightly too terse to be maximally useful, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

The presence of an output schema removes the need to explain return values, and the tool is simple (one param, no nesting). However, with no annotations and an entirely undocumented parameter, the description leaves gaps an agent must guess at regarding session_id validity and failure behavior.

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 0% for the single required session_id parameter, and the description says nothing about its format, where to obtain it, or whether it must reference an active session. The description therefore adds no meaning beyond the bare parameter name.

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?

States a specific verb ("Return") and a specific resource ("state and prompt metadata for an active session"). It is distinguishable from siblings like open_session/close_session/terminal_read, though it never names them or contrasts its scope against read_output, which also returns data.

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 prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as read_output or terminal_read. The phrase "for an active session" faintly implies it applies only to live sessions, but nothing tells the agent what to do with a closed or invalid session.

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