check_session

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word '확인' (check) plus the conditional about session expiry strongly indicate a non-mutating status check. The mention of needing to re-run login_setup.py on expiry adds useful operational context beyond a bare 'check session' statement.

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: one states the core action, the other provides the actionable follow-up for the failure condition. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or tautology.

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 zero parameters, low complexity, and the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to document return values. It covers the tool's purpose and the single important post-condition (re-run login_setup.py on expiry), making it complete for an agent to invoke and interpret.

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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter ambiguity for the description to resolve. This matches the baseline for a 0-parameter tool.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'check if session is alive' (세션이 살아있는지 확인). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling content-management tools, all of which operate on categories, drafts, posts, or publishing. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 a use case: verify session liveness, and provides a concrete follow-up action if the session is expired: re-run login_setup.py. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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