session_inspect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the non-mutating behavior and describes the return payload in useful terms (ARIA snapshot, candidate targets, suggested Target). It does not cover error cases, permissions, or invalid-session behavior, so it is not a 5.

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?

One tightly structured sentence front-loads the action and the non-mutation guarantee, then packs the output contents into an appositive. There is no filler and every phrase contributes meaning.

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 an output schema present, some return-value detail is already covered, and the tool is fairly simple. However, the lack of explicit guidance on max_results behavior and the absence of preconditions/error hints leave the definition slightly incomplete for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only indirectly explains 'query' via 'matching a query'; session_id and max_results are never described, and the effect of max_results on the candidate target list is absent.

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 ('Inspect') and names the exact resource ('current page of an open session'), plus the key output ('ARIA snapshot plus candidate targets'). It is clear and easy to distinguish from act/screenshot tools by its read-only framing, though it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like discover_elements or probe_target.

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 context is implied: use it on an open session when you want to inspect rather than modify. The phrase 'without changing it' hints at when not to use it, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over nearby alternatives such as discover_elements, probe_target, or session_screenshot.

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