Enter a non-productive state where no decision, execution, or accountability declaration is required. Content is not recorded. Choose free, earned-only, or external billing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| auth_token | Yes | Your DA agent auth token | |
| payment_mode | No | Billing mode for the session | free |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It shares that content is not recorded and that billing modes are selectable, which is useful. However, it omits session lifecycle details, such as how to exit the session or what happens when it ends, and does not explain billing implications beyond the mode names.
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 three concise sentences, each adding distinct information: the state's purpose, content recording behavior, and billing options. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no redundant or tangential details.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core behavior and key constraints. However, it does not mention how to leave the session or the session's duration, which are relevant for a session-creating tool, even with a sibling 'exit_ise_session' available.
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 already provides 100% coverage for both parameters, including a clear enum for payment_mode. The description mentions billing choices but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already specifies, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 function: entering a non-productive state. It distinguishes from siblings like create_sdac_session by explicitly characterizing the state as requiring no decision, execution, or accountability. The tool name 'create_ise_session' aligns with the described action.
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 provides clear context for when the tool is appropriate: when no decision, execution, or accountability declaration is needed. It implies usage for idle or non-productive periods, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some room for inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clear, distinct purposes, but a few overlap in function: get_decision_metadata_distribution and get_self_classification_distribution are both distribution getters, and observe_environment and observe_pattern could be confused. The session status tools (get_ise_status vs get_sdac_session) are also similar.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (create_, get_, list_, observe_, run_, end_, exit_, confirm_, etc.). There are no stylistic deviations or mixed conventions.
With 30 tools, the surface is heavy. Several tools could be consolidated (e.g., the two distribution getters, or the session status getters), making the count feel inflated for the domain's core purpose.
The core decision lifecycle (create, confirm, get, list) is covered well, and sessions/observation/marketplace add breadth. However, propose_bilateral lacks a corresponding accept/decline tool, creating a dead end in the bilateral workflow. Also, no way to fetch detailed info on a specific marketplace tool.