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. The description adds that this is a read operation and that session policy and per-request checks still apply, which is useful access-control context not covered by annotations. However, it does not describe output or edge cases, though read-only nature limits side effects.

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 brief and organized: command name, risk, maturity, and requirements. It is front-loaded with the command identifier and contains no fluff. Each sentence carries some information, though the content is lighter on purpose than on metadata.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description does not explain what `session.status` returns or what constitutes session status. Combined with the lack of a clear purpose, an agent may confuse it with other status tools. The access-control note adds minor context, but the overall description is insufficient for reliable selection and invocation.

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 input schema provides descriptions for `_requestId`, `_authorization`, and `_transactionId`, but `_expectedSceneRevision` lacks a description. The tool description does not mention any parameters, nor does it help clarify the ambiguous `_expectedSceneRevision` field, leaving a gap that could affect correct invocation.

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 identifies the command as `session.status` and provides metadata (risk, maturity), but never states what the command actually does. It lacks an action verb and a description of the resource being reported on, making it nearly a tautology. An agent would have to infer the tool's purpose from its name alone.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus similar status-related siblings like `blender_connection_status`, `blender_production_status`, or `blender_job_status`. The note about per-request argument checks and session policy relates to invocation requirements, not to selecting this tool over alternatives.

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