session_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but 'Get ... status' only implies a read operation. It does not state that it is non-destructive, whether it requires an active session, or how it behaves if no session exists.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and every word contributes to meaning.

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 is simple with no parameters and an output schema that presumably documents return values, so the description is adequate for invoking it. However, it lacks any usage context, such as whether a session must already be started, which is a clear gap given the sibling start_session and stop_session tools.

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 input schema has zero parameters and the description does not need to add parameter meaning. This is the baseline case where no parameters exist.

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 'Get managed Vivado session status.' uses a specific verb (Get) and names a distinct resource (managed Vivado session status), which separates it from sibling status tools like get_workflow_trace_status and get_runtime_cache_status. However, it does not elaborate on what exactly the status contains, so it is slightly less informative than descriptions that enumerate fields.

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 gives no indication of when to call this tool relative to start_session, stop_session, or other workflow steps, and no mention of alternatives or exclusions. An agent is left to infer that 'status' is needed without guidance on prerequisites such as an active session.

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