get_session_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It is transparent about what the tool computes: progress counts and confidence breakdown based on each answered item's latest self-reported confidence. The word 'Return' implies a read-only operation, and no side effects are suggested, though explicit no-mutation guarantees are absent.

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?

A single well-structured sentence starts with the core purpose and then lists the specific metrics returned. Every phrase adds information, and the confidence breakdown details are naturally appended without redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, and an output schema exists, so return values do not need detailed explanation in the description. The description already enumerates all the metrics the agent can expect, making it complete enough to call the tool correctly.

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 input schema only provides the parameter name 'document_id' and its type, with 0% schema description coverage. The description compensates by stating the tool returns progress 'for a document', clarifying that document_id identifies the document whose study progress is being queried. It doesn't fully explain the parameter, but the parameter is self-explanatory and the connection is clear.

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 ('Return') and a well-defined resource ('study progress for a document'), then lists concrete counts and a confidence breakdown. The semantic content clearly differentiates this from siblings like get_study_items or get_due_items, which focus on retrieving items rather than progress statistics.

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 the tool is for checking study progress, which suggests when an agent would use it. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_due_items or reset_progress, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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