session_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden, and it does disclose the one behavior that matters most: refresh=true performs a live browser-session probe rather than a passive check. It says nothing about the cost/latency of that probe, permission requirements, or what the non-refresh path actually consults (cache vs. cookie jar), leaving the mutation-adjacent side effects underspecified.

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 semicolon-joined sentence with zero filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded ahead of the refresh modifier. Nothing redundant is present.

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 two-parameter status tool whose output schema already defines the return shape, this is nearly sufficient: purpose plus the refresh behavior covers the core decision. The only real hole is the unexplained 'site' parameter, which matters because the tool is site-scoped.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for two undocumented properties. It explains 'refresh' well but leaves 'site' completely unaddressed — an agent cannot tell whether it takes a domain, a site key, or whether null means 'the default/active site'.

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 gives a specific verb ('查看') plus a specific resource ('站点登录/会话状态'), so an agent knows immediately this reports authentication state rather than mutating anything. It does not name the nearest siblings (login, list_sites, diagnostics), so the differentiation from them must be inferred from the name.

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 supplies one useful conditional: set refresh=true to re-probe via the browser session. That implies the default path is a cheaper/cached read, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no pointer to the login tool for the case where the status comes back unauthenticated.

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