get_session_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description nonetheless adds material behavioral context the annotations cannot convey. The caveat that 'ready' means locally usable transport rather than verified live X authentication, plus the legacy-backend 'unknown' case, is exactly the kind of nuance that prevents misreads.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences that each carry distinct content: the state list, the 'ready' clarification, and the legacy-backend caveat. Dense but no filler sentences.

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-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers the state semantics and the important 'ready' caveat well. The remaining gap is parameter handling, which the definition leaves entirely to an undocumented schema field.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single 'account' parameter carries no description in the schema. The description never mentions the parameter at all, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage by stating what the account selector does or whether it is optional for the default session.

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?

States a specific verb (Inspect) and resource (local session lifecycle), and enumerates the exact states it reports, which is concrete and distinguishable. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_account_health or get_runtime_info, which also report status-like information.

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 phrasing 'without reading cookies or starting a browser' implies the intended lightweight, local-only use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It never names get_account_health or get_runtime_info as alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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