get_session_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Return' signals a read-only retrieval and the output contents are listed, which is helpful. However, it does not mention prerequisites like an existing session, failure behavior, or whether any state changes occur.

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 sentence with the action front-loaded and concrete data elements listed. Every word earns its place; there is no repetition or filler.

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 description covers the return contents but omits the role of session_id, the fact that the schema marks no parameters as required, and how this report relates to sibling report tools. With no annotations or output schema, an agent still has unanswered setup and selection questions.

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 description coverage is 0% for the session_id parameter, and the description never mentions session_id or explains how it selects the report. The property name is mildly self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value and fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 ('Return') and enumerates concrete report contents: verification outcomes, verified-fix-rate, open findings, and scan totals. It clearly identifies what the tool produces, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like get_review_report.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use get_session_report versus get_review_report or the other sibling tools. The only hint is the tool's name, so an agent must infer usage context without any explicit conditions or exclusions.

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