validate_session

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and side-effect profile. The description adds the behavioral trait that no token material is returned, which is a valuable security detail beyond annotations. It also implies a boolean/success response. No contradictions.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by a concise behavioral qualifier. There is zero wasted text, and the structure is ideal for quick agent comprehension.

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?

The tool has no parameters, a simple purpose, and an output schema exists (so return values are structured elsewhere). The description covers the purpose and a key behavioral trait. Given the annotations, everything an agent needs to call and interpret this tool is present.

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 the input schema trivially covers everything. With no parameters, there is nothing for the description to explain. The description does not need to add parameter meaning; baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 ('Confirm') and a clear resource ('current authenticated N-central API session'), and adds the qualifier 'without returning token material', which precisely defines what the tool does and distinguishes it from any sibling that might return session or user data. It is unambiguous and actionable.

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 clearly implies its use case (validating the current session) and the 'without returning token material' phrase helps differentiate it from tools like get_current_user. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, leaving some inference to the agent. This is a minor gap.

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