remote_session_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. 'Get status' implies a read-only operation, but there is no explicit statement about safety or side effects. The description does provide useful behavioral context by listing exactly which status fields are returned, but it lacks clarity on behavior when no sessions exist or any potential rate limits.

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?

A single, focused sentence that opens with the verb 'Get' and quickly enumerates the key included status fields. Every word earns its place with no redundant information.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema read operation, the description is complete. It states the scope ('all remote sessions') and the specific information provided (working directory, port forwards, auto-reconnect), giving the agent sufficient context to decide when to invoke this tool.

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 is empty (100% coverage with no properties). The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'all remote sessions', listing specific details (working directory, port forwards, auto-reconnect status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like remote_session_history or remote_session_output, which focus on different aspects.

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 context for use is clear: checking the overall status of all sessions at a glance. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., remote_session_history for detailed logs), though the intent is evident.

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