get_session_status

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint: true, and the description is consistent with that. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the annotation (e.g., whether the check requires authorization, whether it incurs cost, or what happens if no session exists). The annotation already covers the safety profile, so the description contributes minimally.

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?

Single sentence, concise and front-loaded. Every word is functional with no redundancy. 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 zero-parameter, read-only status check with no output schema, the description is complete enough. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does. No additional context about return values or behavior is strictly necessary given the tool's simplicity.

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 no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty properties). The description does not need to add parameter info. Baseline 4 for zero parameters is appropriate; the description is sufficient.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Check', resource 'session status', and scope 'currently active in this MCP server instance'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling session tools like create_session, attach_session, and delete_session by indicating it is a status check.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. While the purpose is clear, the description does not provide context about prerequisites, conditions for calling, or when to avoid it. Implied usage is straightforward but not explicitly stated.

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