aula_session_status

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

The description explicitly states the tool does not start an auth flow, which is a key behavioral trait. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose return values, side effects, or error conditions. The provided detail adds some transparency but is minimal.

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 entire description is a single concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any filler or redundant information.

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?

Given the simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose and one key behavior. However, it lacks return value information and does not clarify the difference from the sibling 'aula_check_auth', leaving some contextual gaps.

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 description adds no parameter semantics. The baseline score of 4 applies because there is nothing to document.

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 the specific verb 'Check' and identifies the resource 'current Aula session', clearly stating the tool's function. It adds 'without starting an auth flow' which partially distinguishes it from auth-flow tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling 'aula_check_auth'.

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 the tool is for checking session validity without triggering authentication, but it does not name alternatives or specify when to prefer this over 'aula_check_auth' or 'aula_login'. Usage context is inferred rather than explicit.

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