session_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'appears authenticated' without clarifying whether the tool makes a network request, has side effects, or what actions it takes if the session is not authenticated. This is insufficient for a tool that may interact with a live browser session.

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 a single sentence that is entirely on topic. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no verbose or redundant phrasing.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. However, it does not provide usage context (e.g., preconditions or relationship to start_login), which is a minor gap for a session-status check.

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 has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty. With no parameters to explain, the baseline score is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. No gap exists here.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to report whether the persistent browser session appears authenticated. The verb 'Report' and specific outcome 'appears authenticated' distinguish it from siblings like start_login or portal_info, making its role unambiguous.

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?

The description implies usage in scenarios where checking authentication status is needed (e.g., before deciding to log in), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like start_login or portal_info. No 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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