session_status

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

The description explicitly states it does not make target calls or consume probes, and clarifies it reports but does not decide. It details exactly what the report contains. With no annotations, this provides good behavioral context.

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 moderate-length paragraph that front-loads the main purpose and efficiently lists report components. Minor clutter from parenthetical details, but overall well-structured.

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?

The description thoroughly explains all report components despite no output schema. However, the missing definition for the 'target' parameter leaves a significant gap for correct 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?

Input schema has one required parameter 'target' with no description in schema (0% coverage). The tool description does not explain what 'target' means or how to use it, failing to add the necessary semantic value.

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 it returns a 'GAP REPORT' for an active session, listing specific components (unsampled_structures, unexecuted_tools, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like execute_probe and finalize_profile by emphasizing it does not make target calls or consume probes.

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 safe usage ('no target calls, no probe consumed') and notes the report is also returned with every execute_probe result, but does not explicitly state when to call this tool standalone versus relying on the attached report. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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