Push actions into a session's message queue (set fields, submit computation, trigger plot, etc.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| actions | Yes | Array of SessionAction objects to push to the browser | |
| session_id | Yes | Session UUID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The phrase 'message queue' hints at asynchronous processing, but the description provides no detail on ordering, execution semantics, error handling, or side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it only offers a one-line summary. This is insufficient for a tool that mutates session state.
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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core function with zero filler. It efficiently uses examples to convey breadth without enumerating every action. This is appropriately sized.
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?
The tool has a complex actions array with many possible action types, yet the description only lists a handful of examples and gives no information about return values, ordering, or how it fits with the session lifecycle. The schema covers parameter semantics but not the operational context, and there is no output schema. The description is too sparse to fully orient an agent.
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 has 100% description coverage for all parameters, including detailed descriptions for each action property. The description itself references example action types but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 the specific verb 'push' and identifies the resource 'a session's message queue', which clearly states the tool's action. It lists representative actions ('set fields, submit computation, trigger plot') that indicate the tool's scope and distinguish it from sibling tools like calculate or get_session_state. This is a clear and specific purpose statement.
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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like calculate_cas or get_session_state. The examples imply it is the mechanism for sending various actions to a session, but it does not state exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only implicitly conveyed.
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.
The three calculation tools (calculate, calculate_cas, calculate_cas_headless) overlap significantly, with calculate_cas_headless being an explicit alias of calculate_cas. An agent may struggle to choose between them. Other session tools are distinct, but the calculation ambiguity lowers the score.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (list_calculators, create_session, get_session_state). Minor deviations exist, especially calculate_cas_headless with the 'headless' modifier and calculate lacking a noun, but the overall pattern is predictable.
With 10 tools, the count is reasonable for a calculator service with session management and CAS features. However, the presence of an alias tool (calculate_cas_headless) makes the set slightly redundant, though not overstuffed.
The surface covers core calculation, CAS evaluation, prefilled URL generation, and session lifecycle (create, push, get state, close). Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit session listing, but most workflows can be completed without workarounds.