List Session Dri Analysis

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. 'View' and 'overview' imply a non-mutating read, and the bullet list discloses what data is surfaced, which is useful behavioral context. It does not state what happens with an invalid or expired session_id, whether a session must be pre-created, or any permission/error behavior.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the description is padded: the 'comprehensive overview of all DRI-related data' claim is immediately restated by a six-item contents list, and the five usage bullets partially overlap. It is readable but longer than a single-parameter list tool warrants.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, yet most of the description is spent enumerating returned contents. What is missing is context relative to the large sibling set: how this differs from per-lookup retrieval and other session-listing tools. Adequate but with a clear gap for a 47-sibling toolbox.

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?

Only one parameter (session_id) exists and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it as 'Virtual session to analyze'. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail (e.g., where to obtain a session_id) beyond the schema, so the 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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource: view all DRI calculations and analysis stored in a virtual session. It is clearly a session-scoped read/inspection tool. However, it never distinguishes itself from closely related siblings such as get_dri_lookup_from_session, list_temp_sessions, or list_active_virtual_sessions, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

A dedicated 'Use this tool when:' block lists five concrete scenarios (reviewing completed work, planning next steps, debugging, managing profiles, preparing export), which is solid positive guidance. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives telling the agent when NOT to use it in favor of get_dri_lookup_from_session or list_temp_sessions.

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