Prepare Exact TIA Live Session

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: a first call may return an explicit Portal-authorization check rather than a session, and the user must be present to approve a Siemens access prompt. That non-obvious two-phase behavior is exactly what annotations cannot convey.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the retry protocol; no filler. Slight density of unexplained jargon ('resident', 'Openness', 'cold session') costs a point but nothing is redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does explain the one important non-obvious return case (an authorization check instead of a session). But for a five-parameter tool with zero schema documentation it leaves the parameters and the meaning of a successful session entirely unaddressed, so it is only adequate.

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% across five parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It never names maxDepth, maxNodes, processId, timeoutMs, or confirmPortalAuthorizationReady — notably omitting the flag that presumably drives the retry protocol it describes, leaving the agent to guess how to signal readiness.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Prepare one exact resident read-only Openness session') and adds a scoping qualifier ('without enumerating project objects') that distinguishes it from the live-object enumeration siblings. An agent can tell it is a session-establishment tool rather than a query tool, though the phrase 'resident Openness session' relies on domain jargon.

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?

Provides real usage guidance for the two-call flow: a cold session returns an authorization check, and the agent should call again only when the user has Portal visible and is ready to approve the Siemens prompt. However, it never says when to use this instead of the sibling query/navigate tools, nor what to do if authorization is declined.

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