Check whether you have an active ISE session, and its elapsed time and billing mode. Free. Use this to find out what exit_ise_session will close.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| auth_token | Yes | Your DA agent auth token |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It states the operation is a read-only check ('Check whether'), and notes it is 'Free', adding cost behavior. It does not explicitly say it modifies nothing, but 'Check' strongly implies no side effects, and the free mention adds useful context.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary function. Every part adds value: the purpose, the return information, the cost, and the relationship to exit_ise_session. No 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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description explains the main outputs (elapsed time, billing mode) and its practical purpose. It doesn't mention error behavior or exact response format, but given the low complexity, it is reasonably complete.
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 coverage is 100%, with auth_token described as 'Your DA agent auth token'. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, so baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already fully documents it.
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 checks for an active ISE session and provides elapsed time and billing mode. It also differentiates from siblings by explicitly tying it to exit_ise_session, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 a specific use case: 'Use this to find out what exit_ise_session will close.' This implies when to use it (before exiting) and provides context, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives beyond the implicit ISE session context.
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.