session_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden alone; it does disclose the shape of the payload and flags the last text field as untrusted, which is genuinely useful security context. It does not state that the call is read-only, whether it fails for finished runs, or what run_id must reference.

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?

A single compact sentence with the key payload fields front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical '(untrusted)' is terse but earns its place.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description needn't explain return values, and it doesn't. What remains missing is operational context for a no-annotation tool: read-only nature, lifecycle constraints, and how run_id is sourced relative to the sibling session tools.

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 single parameter run_id has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it — no format, no guidance on obtaining it from session_start. A one-line note would have compensated entirely.

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 names a specific resource (one run) and enumerates what the status contains (counters, tokens, last tool, budget, last text), which lets an agent distinguish it from session_list or session_tail. It lacks an explicit verb and never names a sibling for contrast, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus session_tail, session_result, or session_list, all of which plausibly overlap. The only implicit signal is 'one run', which does not tell an agent which of several observability tools to pick.

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