Session status

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds minimal behavioral insight beyond stating what is retrieved. It does not clarify side effects, error conditions, or state requirements (e.g., whether a session must exist).

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, concise sentence effectively communicates the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is efficiently front-loaded with the action and key resources.

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?

With no output schema, the description provides only a brief list of what is returned ('current session, target binding, and Spector runtime status') but lacks detail on the structure or format. This is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about the response shape.

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?

There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters, and schema coverage is 100%.

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 specific verb 'Get' and explicitly lists three resources: current session, target binding, and Spector runtime status. This clearly defines the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from siblings like webgl_runtime_status, which focuses only on runtime status.

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 such as webgl_runtime_status or webgl_session_create. It does not mention prerequisites or context, leaving the agent without usage recommendations.

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