session_get_steps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation via 'Return' and describes the output structure, but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, whether authentication is required, or what happens if no session is active. This is adequate for a simple getter but lacks richer context.

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 extremely concise: one sentence states the purpose, and a second lists the return fields. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary wording. Every word earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema present), the description covers everything needed: it names the resource ('all recorded steps and notes'), scopes it to the active session, and summarizes the return format. The presence of an output schema means detailed return structures are already handled, so the description is fully 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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema correctly reflects this (no properties, 100% coverage). The description does not need to explain parameters, and per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. No additional parameter semantics are necessary.

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 the specific verb 'Return' with the resource 'all recorded steps and notes of the active session,' making its purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from siblings like session_status (which likely returns status) and session_add_note (which adds notes) by explicitly targeting the full step/note history.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: whenever an agent needs the complete record of steps and notes from the current session. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough that an agent would not confuse it with the status or note-adding siblings. A small deduction for lack of explicit 'use for / use instead' guidance.

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