Probe LINE session

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent, and the description reinforces this with 'without changing anything.' It adds meaningful beyond-annotation context by disclosing the redacted return behavior: 'Returns key names with type and length only, never secrets.' This is valuable safety-relevant detail, though it doesn't cover potential rate limits or auth requirements.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, usage next, return safety last. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler 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?

Given zero parameters, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description provides all essential context: what the tool checks, when to use it, and what the response will and will not contain. No critical information is missing for an agent to select and invoke 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema fully reflects that with 100% coverage, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The description correctly focuses on behavior and return values instead.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Check login state and redacted storage without changing anything.' It also signals its non-destructive role relative to clear_session. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling line_status, which likely also reports login state, so full sibling distinction is missing.

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 gives an explicit usage trigger: 'Call this before clear_session, or when login looks flaky.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool, but it does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as line_status for status-only checks.

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