Session State

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a read-only operation, and the description aligns by saying 'Inspect'. It adds a little context by specifying that it covers artifacts and call history accumulated over time, but it does not disclose return format, session lifecycle behavior, or error cases. The input schema's 'read/write shared state' phrasing is somewhat ambiguous against the readOnlyHint, though the main description itself is consistent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the tool's purpose and scope, making it highly concise 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?

For a simple read-only inspection tool with one optional parameter and a readOnlyHint, the description provides enough context for an agent to select the tool. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying what a session encompasses or what the returned artifacts look like, especially since no output schema is present.

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 only parameter, session_id, has a complete schema description with 100% coverage, so the tool description does not need to repeat parameter details. The description adds no extra semantic value for the parameter. The schema's phrase 'read/write shared state' is a minor ambiguity given the readOnlyHint, but parameter documentation itself is present.

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 names a specific verb ('Inspect') and a concrete resource ('artifacts and call history') scoped to a session. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that report health, validate specs, or run experiments, so an agent can tell what this tool is for without opening the schema.

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 implies that this tool is for reading accumulated session artifacts and call history, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternatives. The usage context must be inferred from the verb and noun phrase rather than being directly instructed.

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