session_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful state semantics: the ready/closed/dead/lost states, worker busy status, and that death reason includes a log tail. It does not describe auth requirements or side effects, but for a read-only status query this is solid.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then parameter guidance, then sibling routing. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return-value detail is handled elsewhere. The description covers states, the log_tail parameter, and sibling routing. Minor gap: it doesn't clarify session_id sourcing, but overall it is complete for a status tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains log_tail's semantics ('last N lines of the session's solver log') which the schema does not, though session_id remains undocumented.

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 resource (a session) and precisely enumerates what state is returned: ready/closed/dead/lost, worker busy status, step count, and death reason. This is concrete and distinguishable from siblings like session_log.

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?

It gives explicit guidance for one parameter ('Set log_tail > 0 to include...') and routes to a sibling ('Use session_model_info for the live simulation time/step'). It lacks a when-not-to-use statement but the sibling routing is clear.

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