get_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only observation ('where the session is') and adds that the tool surfaces blocking issues. But it doesn't explicitly state side-effect freedom, required permissions, or behavior when the named session doesn't exist.

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 short, front-loaded, and avoids filler. It could be slightly more complete as a full sentence with an explicit verb, but as written it is economical and not bloated.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, a single undocumented required parameter, and only a ten-word description, the agent has too little to reliably invoke the tool. The description conveys the concept of status/blockers but not the calling contract. The sibling list provides surrounding context, but the description itself remains incomplete.

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 schema has one required parameter, 'name', with no description and 0% schema deck cover. The tool description never directly explains what 'name' should be, though the word 'session' implies it is a session identifier. Valid sources for the name and format are left unstated.

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 says what get_status reports: the session's current position and what blockers are present. It is clear enough to distinguish from action-oriented siblings like run_session and step_session. However, it doesn't differentiate from list_sessions_tool, which may also surface session state.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to call this tool versus list_sessions_tool, resolve_gate, or step_session. There are no stated prerequisites, such as the session needing to exist or be running. Usage is left entirely to inference.

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