Статус сессии

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

This is an Annotation Contradiction: the description says 'Сам поднимает уровень до CLIENT' — a state-changing action — while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. That directly conflicts with the read-only contract. No other behavioral caveats are offered.

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 short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the primary purpose, the second adds the key time-relative exception, and the whole thing earns its place for a zero-parameter tool.

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 parameters and an output schema present, the call shape is sufficiently documented. However, the contradiction between the readOnly annotation and the described session-level mutation leaves the agent uncertain whether calling this has side effects. It also doesn't route the agent among session-related siblings, leaving a small but meaningful context gap.

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 coverage is effectively 100%. There is no parameter information to add; the baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed.

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 uses a concrete verb 'Проверить' (check) and a clear resource (session), so the core purpose is identifiable. It also adds a behavioral detail about raising the level to CLIENT after the ~11-minute portal-session window closes, which gives useful context. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely related session tools like refresh_session or keepalive.

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 does not say when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as keepalive, refresh_session, or login. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer the correct context and provide no exclusions or routing guidance.

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