session_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that passwords are excluded from the output, which is an important security trait. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what data is included in the safety summary, or any other behavioral context.

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 a single, short sentence with no filler, and the password exclusion is placed in parentheses as a key qualifier. It is front-loaded and efficient, though its extreme brevity borders on under-specification for an agent trying to understand the return content.

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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the safety summary contains. Instead, it only provides a high-level label and one exclusion, leaving the agent without enough detail to understand the return values or how this differs from siblings like router_overview.

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 are no parameter semantics to document beyond the baseline. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed, and the schema confirms an empty object.

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 states that the tool returns a safety summary of connection settings, which is a vague resource label, and adds the key exclusion that passwords are not output. It does not differentiate from siblings like router_overview or get_wifi, leaving the exact scope unclear. A minimum-viable purpose score is appropriate given the ambiguity.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools such as router_overview or get_wifi. No prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions are mentioned. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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