handshake_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that this is a read-only session check, requires no token, and reports session liveness, remaining time, and secret count. It does not cover exact response formatting or error cases, but it is sufficient for a zero-input status tool.

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 two short, information-dense sentences. The opening question immediately conveys intent, and the second sentence provides output details, auth requirements, and usage ordering without wasted words.

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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and low complexity, the description explains what the tool returns, that it needs no token, and when to call it. It is largely complete, though it could slightly clarify the format or units of 'how long is left.'

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, so the schema is trivially complete. The description adds relevant context by stating that no token is needed, reinforcing that no input is required. This meets the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 the tool's purpose: checking whether the vault/session is live, with time remaining and secret count. It distinguishes itself from sibling data-access tools by being a status-only check and by saying to call it first when a credential is needed.

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 explicit situational guidance: 'Needs no token — call this first when a credential is needed.' This tells the agent when to invoke it and establishes ordering relative to credential access, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it.

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