ecount_get_session_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool checks Zone info, session validity, and expiration time, which implies a read-only operation. But it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or describe error behavior (e.g., what happens if the session is already expired). The debugging hint adds some context, but it lacks detailed behavioral disclosure beyond the obvious.

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?

The description is three short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by details and usage. It is concise with no filler or repetition; every sentence adds value.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it checks, when to use it, and how to call it. The listed checked items (Zone info, validity, expiration) partially imply the return content, but the exact response format is not described. Given the low complexity, the description is sufficiently complete, though it could be improved by specifying the returned structure.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and the baseline for no parameters is 4. The description reinforces this with '인자 없이 호출합니다' (call without arguments), aligning with the schema. There is no additional parameter information needed since there are no parameters.

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 starts with '현재 ECOUNT 세션 상태 조회' (retrieve current ECOUNT session status), clearly identifying the action and resource. It lists specific checked items (Zone info, validity, expiration time), making the purpose concrete. This tool is distinct from sibling tools like ecount_server_status or ecount_test_connection because it focuses specifically on session state, even without naming them.

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?

It explicitly states when to use: '세션이 만료되었는지 확인하거나 디버깅할 때 사용합니다' (use to check if session is expired or for debugging). It also notes '인자 없이 호출합니다' (call with no arguments), providing direct invocation guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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