session_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two non-obvious traits: the state is local, and cookies are never returned (a useful privacy guarantee). However, it does not say whether authentication is required, what happens when the token has already expired, or that the call is strictly read-only, so meaningful gaps remain.

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?

Two short sentences with zero padding, and the primary payload (what state is returned) is front-loaded. The security note about cookies is placed second as a qualifier, which is the right order.

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?

With no output schema, the description must sketch the return contents, and it does list domain, token expiry, and write-enablement. For a parameterless status tool that is close to sufficient; only the behavior on an expired or absent session is unaddressed.

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 there is nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed by framing the call as a state read.

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 states a specific resource (local session state) and enumerates what it exposes: domain, token expiry, and whether writes are enabled. That is far more concrete than a tautology. It never distinguishes itself from the nearby sibling whoami, which likely surfaces identity from the same session, leaving the agent to guess which one to call.

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 or when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative. The phrase 'whether writes are enabled' only implies a pre-write check use case, which the agent must infer. Usage is implied by the content rather than stated.

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