session_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does communicate that this is a read-only 'get' operation and names the returned status areas. However, it does not disclose what happens when no session exists, whether the optional context_pct parameter changes the output, or whether any side effects/errors are possible.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then enumerates the useful output categories. There is no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 simple status retrieval with one optional parameter, naming the output areas is mostly sufficient. However, the description does not connect the optional context_pct parameter to the 'context warning level', and with no output schema or annotations, the agent is missing some context about return shape and error or prerequisite behavior.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 even though the tool description itself never mentions context_pct. The schema says 'Current context% for threshold warning', which gives basic meaning, but the tool description does not clarify how this optional number influences the status ouput.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Get'), a defined resource ('current session's status'), and then enumerates exactly what is included: recorded items, dead ends, task progress, and context warning level. This is enough to distinguish it from siblings like session_log or session_load, which operate on session content rather than report an aggregate status.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as session_log, session_checkpoint, or session_diagram. The phrase 'Get the current session's status' implies a monitoring use case, but the description never states conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent must infer selection.

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