status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It clarifies the tool is a read-only check by stating 'Check current connection and session status' and lists the returned info. However, it does not disclose details about error conditions, network dependencies, or side effects (though none expected).

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.

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?

For a simple, parameterless status tool, the description provides sufficient context about the returned information. However, it does not explain when to use it in the broader workflow or what constitutes a connection/session, which could be considered a minor gap.

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 the schema is already complete. The description adds meaning by explaining what status information is shown, but parameter semantics are not applicable.

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 identifies the tool as a status checker for connection and session, listing the specific information displayed (login state, saved route, session info). This distinguishes it from ride-specific status tools like get_ride_status.

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 its use as a session/connection check but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. Sibling tools operate on ride state, so context hints at differentiation but not explicitly.

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