get_current_session

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It does disclose a non-obvious behavior: during the interim it returns the upcoming session, not the one just ended, and explains that 'continued bills and new prefiles accumulate there.' However, it omits other behavioral details such as read-only nature, auth requirements, or error behavior. For a simple get with no parameters, the added interim nuance is valuable but the overall disclosure is only partial.

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?

Two sentences total: the first front-loads the core purpose, the second adds the critical usage nuance. Both sentences earn their place with no redundancy or filler. The structure is clean and highly readable.

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 tool with an output schema (the schema is not shown but is indicated), the description is nearly complete. It covers the key semantic nuance of what 'current' means during interim, which is the main source of confusion. It doesn't explicitly state the returned object's shape or mention error conditions, but the output schema handles return details. An agent can call this correctly without additional information.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description adds context about the session itself (e.g., interim behavior) but there are no parameters to document; the schema already covers the empty parameter list. No additional value is needed or 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 returns 'The General Assembly's current working session' – a specific resource. It distinguishes from siblings by explaining the interim nuance and directing retrospective work to 'other tools', though without naming a specific alternative. That's clear, but stops short of naming the exact sibling tool, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Explicitly explains when to use this tool (for the current working session, including interim where it is the upcoming session) and when not to: 'For retrospective work on a finished session, pass that session's code to the other tools instead of relying on this default.' This gives direct yes/no usage conditions and points to an alternative category, satisfying the highest bar.

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