avanza_select_session

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful information by labeling the operation 'read-only' and noting the session must be 'loaded', which suggests a safety profile. However, it does not explain stateful side effects, behavior for invalid session_id, or whether the context switch persists across calls, leaving only partial transparency.

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 compact sentence with the core action front-loaded. Every phrase adds meaning, and there is no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool.

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 context-switch tool, the description states the action and read-only nature, which covers the primary behavior. But it does not explain how the agent should discover valid session IDs, what happens if the session is not loaded, or what 'MCP/TUI session context' means operationally. With no output schema and no annotations, these gaps make the description only partially complete.

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 schema provides only type: string for session_id with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The tool description never names session_id or explains its format, value range, or how to obtain a valid one. The description only vaguely implies the parameter identifies the loaded tenant session, which is insufficient given the schema provides no guidance.

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?

Description uses the verb 'Switch' and identifies both the resource ('active MCP/TUI session context') and the target ('a loaded tenant session'). The qualifier 'read-only context switch' clarifies that this is a selection operation rather than a mutation. It is clearly distinguishable from listing tools like avanza_sessions and account selection tools like avanza_select_account.

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 phrase 'to a loaded tenant session' implies a precondition: the session must already be loaded or available. However, the description does not explicitly mention alternatives, when not to use this tool, or that the agent should first call avanza_sessions to discover valid session IDs. Usage guidance is only implied, not explicit.

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