Session Connections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that the tool returns 'nodes + links', which is consistent and provides some output context. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as aggregation behavior, cardinality limits, or that it operates on aggregated data rather than raw sessions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no redundant or verbose language. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, graph output), the description covers the core concept well. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values. However, it lacks details on default parameters (e.g., max_nodes=100, src_field=source.ip) and aggregation semantics, which would be helpful for full completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions 'source field and destination field' in general terms. No additional parameter guidance or examples are provided.

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 clearly states the tool builds a connection graph between source and destination fields over a time range, using a specific verb ('build') and resource ('connection graph'), and adds the use case 'visualizing communication relationships'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like session-unique-values or search-sessions.

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 usage for visualizing communication relationships but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide conditions when not to use it. No exclusions or sibling references are given.

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