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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists the returned state categories and does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens for unknown session IDs, or whether there are side effects. The word 'Return' implies a read operation, but that is not explicit or supported by annotations.

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 focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, and every word contributes to defining what the tool returns.

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?

The output schema covers the return shape, so the description does not need to explain response values. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, the description is only minimally complete. An agent can infer the tool's basic purpose but lacks information about when to call it, how session_id is interpreted, or what side effects to expect.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description never mentions session_id or its default value. The phrase 'for a session' weakly implies the session_id parameter, but the description does not clarify what values are valid, whether it is optional, or how the default works. The description adds little beyond the schema's bare property definition.

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 the explicit verb 'Return' and identifies a specific resource: bridge, runtime, test-client, and RAG state for a session. It is clear and maps well to the tool name. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as sessions_list or client_busy_status, but the stated scope is specific enough to convey the core purpose.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sessions_list, start_session, stop_session, or client_busy_status. There are no conditions, exclusions, prerequisites, or context indicating the appropriate invocation scenario.

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