status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it never states that this is a read-only, side-effect-free operation, nor whether it requires an active session, hits rate limits, or reflects cached vs live state. The terms 'cooldown' and 'bridge readiness' imply runtime behavior but are unexplained jargon.

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?

It is certainly short and front-loaded, but it is a bare noun-phrase fragment rather than a sentence, and its terseness crosses into under-specification rather than efficiency. Every word is content, but there is too little of it.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and a 0-param tool is inherently simple. Still, the description leaves an agent unsure of when to invoke it and what 'cooldown' or 'bridge readiness' mean operationally, which is the main gap for a status endpoint.

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 for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a 0-param tool applies. The listed fields loosely map to the expected return surface, which is mildly helpful.

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 fragment names the resource (session state) and enumerates the fields it reports (channels, cooldown, quota, bridge readiness), so an agent can infer it returns current session diagnostics. However, there is no verb and nothing that distinguishes it from siblings like detail or search, so it stops short of a clear purpose statement.

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 gives no indication of when to call status versus detail, search, or export. An agent must guess whether this is a health check, a pre-flight probe, or a summary endpoint.

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