Show the worker's session state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the scope ('this session and all sessions') and the active worker distinction, but it discloses no additional behavioral traits such as latency, freshness, or side effects beyond what annotations already provide.

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 sentence that front-loads the most important category (mode) and then lists the remaining state fields without filler or repetition. Every listed item contributes to the agent's understanding of what the tool returns.

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 zero-parameter interface, the read-only annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role and returned contents. It could be slightly more explicit about intended use cases, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 an empty input schema, so the description has no parameter documentation burden. With schema coverage effectively at 100%, the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing missing that the description would need to explain.

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 title and description clearly state this tool shows the worker's session state, and the description enumerates the exact contents of that state (mode, session identity, worker, compaction counts, tokens saved). This is specific enough to distinguish it from the sibling action-oriented tools like local_llm_run, local_llm_compact, and local_llm_set_mode.

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 this is the inspection/status tool, but it never explicitly states when to use it instead of the sibling tools or whether it is meant as a precursor to actions like compaction or delegation. Usage context is implied by the name and title rather than stated.

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