pbi_session_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description need not repeat safety. It adds valuable behavioral context by explaining that the tool distinguishes valid vs stale vs mismatch sessions and reports freshness, which clarifies output semantics beyond the structured annotations.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then adding the session-state distinction. Every clause earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 existence of an output schema and read-only annotations, the description is complete for a simple info tool. It conveys the essential output concepts (active model, project, freshness, status classes) without needing to enumerate return fields. The agent has sufficient context to use 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 has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the tool's output rather than nonexistent inputs.

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's function: it provides session details (active model, project, freshness) and distinguishes valid, stale, and mismatch session states. This specific scope differentiates it from generic health/connection checks, making the purpose unambiguous and non-tautological.

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 verifying session status and validity, but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. The context is clear enough for an agent to know when to invoke this tool, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer it over sibling tools like pbi_health_check or pbi_test_connection.

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