remote_session_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers useful non-schema behavior: the session is 'current' (live relay state), the supervised variant prompts y/N per command while the auto variant is unattended, and there is a hard presentation contract (show both one-liners verbatim in a fenced code block as the final message of the turn). It stops short of stating whether calling it mutates or rotates session state.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the field contents, then the presentation directive. It is dense and the first sentence is run-on with parentheticals, but every clause carries information the agent needs and nothing is redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns, and it does: key, URLs, and both listener one-liners with their execution modes. Combined with the explicit formatting instruction for surfacing the result to the user, an agent has everything needed to call it and present it correctly.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description goes slightly further by explaining the semantics of the returned fields (the two quickstart one-liner variants and their supervision modes), which is meaning the empty schema cannot convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return the current relay session') and enumerates exactly what comes back: key, URLs, and the paste-ready listener one-liners. The scope is distinct from remote_exec (runs commands) and remote_session_reset (tears the session down), so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this to obtain session details and bootstrap commands before acting remotely. The description does clarify the two output variants (remote_quickstart = supervised with y/N per command, remote_quickstart_auto = unattended), which helps choose which one-liner to hand the user, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not statement relative to the siblings.

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