session_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's limitation (cannot validate server-side session state), the kind of information returned, and the action to take if auth fails. It does not explicitly state side effects (likely none) or network behavior, but for a status-check tool this is sufficient.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose, a note on limitations, and a returns section. It is not overly verbose and front-loads the main function. The note adds important context without unnecessary fluff, though it could be slightly tightened.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and includes a practical caveat about server-side validation. It doesn't mention error handling or edge cases, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, it covers the essentials.

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 schema coverage is 100% and there is nothing for the description to explain about parameters. The description adds value by detailing what the status includes (tenant subdomain and age), which goes beyond the empty schema. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the extra context justifies maintaining that score.

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 the verb ('Check'), the resource ('cached session for document operations'), and what it returns ('tenant subdomain and age'). It distinguishes itself from sibling session tools like jwt_token_status or session_browser_status by focusing specifically on cached session data for document operations.

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 provides context on when to use it (checking cached session) and explicitly warns that it cannot validate server-side state, advising re-authentication via capture_session.sh if auth errors occur. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like session_browser_status or jwt_token_status, so the usage guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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