session_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses that the response is a redacted 'public view' and explicitly excludes tokens and signatures, strongly implying a non-sensitive read operation. It does not explicitly state 'no side effects' or auth requirements, but the read-only framing and lack of parameters make those risks minimal.

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 entire description is one tight, front-loaded sentence. It states the action and resource immediately and adds only the relevant redaction detail. There is no filler or redundant content.

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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool, the description provides enough information to select and invoke it correctly, including what kind of data it returns and what it strips out. The lack of an output schema means the exact return fields are not described, but that is not essential for a no-argument status query.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing meaningful for the description to add about parameters. The phrase 'no tokens, no signatures' usefully signals that callers do not need to pass credentials or authentication material.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies the exact resource: 'the public view of the current Gateway session.' It also adds a distinguishing exclusion ('no tokens, no signatures'), making it easy to tell apart from mutating sibling tools like create_session.

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 clearly positions the tool as a safe, read-only status check for the current Gateway session, and the zero-parameter schema makes invocation unambiguous. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but for this simple status tool the implied usage is clear.

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