pbi_session_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It clarifies what the tool reports (active model, project, freshness) and the meaning of stale versus mismatch, which goes beyond a simple label. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, but the word 'Detalle' (detail) and the nature of the tool strongly imply it is an informational query.

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 compact, using two short sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add a clarifying distinction. Every sentence provides meaningful information without 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?

For a zero-parameter information tool with an output schema, the description is fairly complete: it explains what session details are included and the status categories. The only gap is the absence of explicit guidance on when to run this check, but the low complexity and existing output schema mean the description does not need to over-explain.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema contains no properties and the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The description adds useful context about what the tool reports, even though it does not mention parameters because there are none to describe.

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 that the tool provides session details (active model, active project, freshness) and distinguishes valid, stale, and mismatched sessions. It names a specific resource and the unique value it provides, which sets it apart from sibling tools that focus on model operations or project actions.

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 used to check whether the current session is valid, stale, or mismatched, which is useful context for deciding whether to proceed with other operations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria, so the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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