rti_session_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does (checks, shows) and adds context about account and cache staleness, implying a read-only operation. It doesn't explicitly state 'no side effects,' but the wording sufficiently indicates a diagnostic tool.

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 two sentences: the first states functionality, the second gives actionable usage guidance. It's concise, front-loaded, and contains 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?

For a status diagnostic tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage context, and what the tool reports. The presence of the output schema obviates the need to explain return values.

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 schema trivially covers everything. Per the rubric, 0 params yields a baseline of 4, and the description doesn't need to add parameter details.

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 checks the stored RTI Online session URL validity, shows account ownership, and indicates cache staleness, which distinctly separates it from sibling tools like rti_status or rti_dashboard. The verb 'Check' plus specific resources makes the purpose 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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Run this first when other tools report authentication problems.' This tells the agent exactly when to use the tool, even though it doesn't mention alternatives, the 'when' is clearly specified.

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