x_check_session

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what is inspected (liveness, logged-in handle) but not whether checking has side effects (e.g. triggering a login flow or refreshing a stored session), what happens if the session is dead, or any auth requirements.

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 that states the resource and the two reported facts 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?

Because an output schema exists, return values need not be described. However, for a session/auth-check tool with no annotations, the description omits side-effect behavior, the semantics of the optional empty `account`, and failure-mode expectations.

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 coverage is 0% for the single `account` parameter, but the description ties it to 'the saved X session for `account`', giving it basic meaning. It does not explain the empty-string default or what happens when the account is omitted.

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?

Uses a specific verb (check) with a specific resource (the saved X session) and states the two things it reports: liveness and the logged-in handle. This cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling x_submit_* tools, which are all write actions.

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?

Usage is only implied: as a session check it is naturally a pre-flight step before the submit siblings, but the description never says when to call it or what to do with the result. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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