Session Status

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

Adds context beyond the annotations by disclosing that the check is local ('without calling TronSave'), which reinforces openWorldHint=false, and by naming the specific error codes (SESSION_REQUIRED, INVALID_SESSION_TYPE) that make this call appropriate. It does not cover rate limits or fallback behavior, but the safety profile is already fully carried by the readOnly/idempotent hints.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the 'without calling TronSave' qualifier and the field list front-loaded before the usage instruction. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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-only status probe with an output schema and full annotations, nothing an agent needs is missing: what it reports, when to call it, and that it costs no remote call. The field enumeration is optional but harmless reinforcement of the output schema.

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 takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The enumerated field list describes return values rather than inputs and is largely redundant with the output 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Report the current authentication state') and enumerates exactly what is returned (authMode, source, walletAddress, hasInternalApiKey, expiresAt, network, available tool groups), which clearly separates it from siblings like tronsave_login, tronsave_logout, or tronsave_get_user_info.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions: 'Call this first when unsure whether to log in' and 'after SESSION_REQUIRED / INVALID_SESSION_TYPE errors.' It does not name an alternative tool to use instead of this one in other situations, so it stops just short of a full when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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