gc_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It correctly implies a read-only check but does not disclose the return format (e.g., boolean, status object) or any potential side effects. Adequate for a simple tool but could be more explicit.

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 in Russian that conveys the entire purpose without any extraneous words. Highly efficient.

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 status-check tool, the description covers the essential aspects: what is checked, who, and how. The only omission is the return value format, but the tool's simplicity makes this a minor gap.

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?

With zero parameters, baseline is 4. The description adds context by specifying the session type (administrator login via CDP), which goes beyond the empty schema.

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 ('проверить' – check) and resource ('сессию GetCourse' – session), clearly indicating the tool checks the administrator's login session via CDP. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform actions like adding, removing, or updating.

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 on when or when not to use this tool compared to siblings. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or alternatives, leaving the agent without decision support for selecting this tool over others.

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