list_status_sessions_background

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is established. The description adds only the endpoint path and does not disclose extra behavioral traits such as pagination, filtering, or response semantics, but with annotations present a 3 is appropriate.

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 plus the endpoint line, with the core purpose front-loaded. Every piece of text contributes and there is no redundancy.

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 parameterless, read-only, idempotent tool with an output schema, the description plus endpoint is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. Nothing critical is missing.

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 nothing the description needs to explain about arguments. Baseline 4 applies because there is no parameter semantics burden.

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?

Description states a clear operation and resource: 'Get background tasks', reinforced by the endpoint path GET /status/sessions/background. The name and resource concept separate it from sibling list_status_sessions, but it does not explicitly name or contrast that sibling, so it narrowly misses a 5.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool over alternatives such as list_status_sessions or status-session history tools. The only implied context is the word 'background' in the name and endpoint, which is not enough to route an agent definitively.

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