session_status

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

The description explicitly notes it returns state 'without session secrets', which is valuable behavioral disclosure for a status tool (signals the agent won't get sensitive data). However, with no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it doesn't specify what 'state' includes—whether results are structured, whether it's a snapshot vs live check, or any polling/reload behavior. It's minimal but does add some transparency value.

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 sentence, zero waste, front-loaded with the core function ('Return coarse browser/workflow state'). This is appropriately terse for a tool with no parameters.

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 are no parameters, no annotations, and no sibling-tool overlap issues; the description covers the main function. The 'without session secrets' qualifier is the only behavioral note, and for a status-checking tool with zero params and no output schema concerns, this is reasonably complete. A slightly richer statement of what 'coarse' state means would help, but the tool is simple enough that this is largely sufficient.

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, so there is no schema burden to compensate for. Description coverage is 100%. There is nothing for the description to add regarding parameters since none exist—baseline 4 applies per the rubric's no-params rule.

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 verb 'Return' plus resource 'coarse browser/workflow state' gives a specific, clear purpose. It effectively distinguishes itself from the sibling tools (which are read/mutate declaration operations) by focusing on session/browser state rather than declaration drafts.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or statement of alternatives. The sibling tools are all declaration-focused (read/mutate/validate/revert), so the purpose implicitly separates them, but the description doesn't explicitly say 'use this to check state before mutating' or give any decision context. The guidance is implied only.

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