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 of behavioral disclosure. It describes what information is returned (session state, restrictions, time remaining), which is useful, but does not cover other behavioral aspects such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated). The description adds value but is not comprehensive.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key outputs. It is front-loaded with the main action ('Check the current session status') and lists specific details without unnecessary elaboration, making it zero-waste and highly concise.

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 tool's complexity (simple status check with no parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It explains what information is returned, which is helpful, but does not cover behavioral aspects like error handling or session management implications. For a tool with no structured metadata, more context on usage and behavior would improve completeness.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without redundant parameter information, meeting the baseline for a parameterless 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('current session status'), and it distinguishes from siblings by focusing on session status rather than secrets, environment, or rules management. It explicitly lists what information is retrieved: active/sleeping state, scope restrictions, and time remaining before auto-sleep.

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 usage context (checking session status) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-status' or 'sleep-session/wake-session'. It provides no guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over others, leaving usage somewhat ambiguous.

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