Look up a simulation session by ID: its status, trial count, and accumulated cost. Free. Use this to see what end_sdac_session will settle.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| auth_token | Yes | Your DA agent auth token | |
| session_id | Yes | The sDAC session ID returned by create_sdac_session |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It mentions 'Free' (cost) and specifies the return fields. However, it doesn't explicitly state that it's read-only or that it has no side effects. It also doesn't mention error behavior (e.g., session not found) or any rate limits. The term 'look up' implies a query, but this is not explicitly disclosed.
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 purpose. Every word adds value: the return fields, the cost implication ('Free'), and the usage hint. No redundancy or fluff.
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?
Since there is no output schema, the description appropriately lists the return items (status, trial count, accumulated cost). It also gives a practical use case and cost info. It doesn't mention error handling or response format, but for a simple lookup this is acceptable. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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 both auth_token and session_id described. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides; 'by ID' simply aligns with session_id but adds no new meaning. Baseline of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb 'Look up' and identifies the resource 'simulation session by ID'. It lists exactly what it returns: status, trial count, accumulated cost. It is clearly distinct from siblings like create_sdac_session and end_sdac_session.
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?
It states a specific use case: 'Use this to see what end_sdac_session will settle.' This gives clear context for when to use it, but it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools (though it hints at end_sdac_session). No exclusions are provided.
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.