session_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. The verb "Return" implies a non-mutating read, which is useful, but nothing is said about whether authentication is required, what session states are possible, or side effects. An output schema exists, which absorbs the return-value burden and keeps this at a middle score rather than lower.

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?

One short sentence that leads with the action and the scoped resource. Every word earns its place and there is no filler or repetition of the tool title.

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, output-schema-backed status tool the description covers what is needed to call it correctly; the return shape is already defined elsewhere. Its only shortfall is the absence of usage context, which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema. No meaningful gap exists on this dimension.

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 (Return) and resource (this MCP connection's webQUIK session state), which is unambiguous about what comes back. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from session-oriented siblings like login, logout, or submit_pin, but the resource it names is distinct enough that an agent can place it without opening the 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?

The description offers no when-to-use guidance whatsoever — no mention of checking state before/after login, no conditions, no prerequisites, and no alternative tools named. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is a diagnostic/health-check call.

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