@git-fabric/chat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving 'full session details including message history,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify permissions required, rate limits, or what 'full details' entails (e.g., metadata, timestamps). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every word earns its place without redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and high schema coverage, the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks output details (no output schema provided) and behavioral context like permissions or data scope. For a read operation with no annotations, it should ideally clarify what 'full details' includes to aid the agent in understanding the return value.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'sessionId' documented as a 'UUID of the session to retrieve.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or sourcing guidance. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('full session details including message history'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like chat_session_list (which likely lists sessions) and chat_message_list (which likely lists messages without full session context). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from chat_session_archive or chat_session_delete, which are also session-specific operations.

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 to use this tool: 'to inspect or resume a prior conversation.' This implies it's for retrieving existing sessions rather than creating new ones (chat_session_create) or listing them (chat_session_list). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for basic differentiation among siblings.

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