session_state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only a fragmentary hint that it concerns the active document, bodies, and the execute space, which is weak context and no real behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations.

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?

It is short, but it is an under-specified sentence fragment rather than an efficient front-loaded statement. Length is not earned by content because the fragment conveys almost nothing actionable.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations beyond safety hints, the description carries the burden of explaining what state is returned. It only gestures at 'active FCA document, bodies, execute space' without saying what the agent receives or how to use it, leaving the definition substantially incomplete.

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 takes zero parameters, so the description has no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline of 4 applies. The input schema is empty and fully documented.

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 is a bare noun phrase ('Active FCA document, bodies and execute space') with no verb and no statement of what the tool does. It vaguely gestures at returned state but never says this tool reads or reports session state, so an agent cannot confidently distinguish it from siblings like script, health_check, or version.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative tool. The agent is given nothing to decide whether session_state or another sibling should be invoked.

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