session_explain

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

The description details the tool's output (summary and structured metadata) and the aspects covered. Although no annotations exist, the description provides sufficient transparency for a read-only explanation tool. It does not mention side effects, which is appropriate as none are expected.

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 concise: a brief introduction, a list of included items, and a clear Args section. Every sentence adds value, and the structure front-loads the purpose. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 straightforward purpose and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, what information it includes, parameter details, and return type. No gaps are evident for expected usage.

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 schema has 0% coverage (no property descriptions), so the description carries full burden. It explains both parameters: 'level' with values 'short', 'medium', 'detailed' and 'focus' with options 'assumptions', 'steps', 'result'. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's default and type constraints.

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 action ('Explain the current derivation in natural language') and lists specific content covered (goal, formulas, operations, assumptions, result). It distinguishes itself from siblings like session_show and generate_derivation_report by focusing on natural-language explanation.

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 in any context where a human-readable summary of the derivation is needed. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, the purpose is clear enough for the agent to decide, especially given the context of sibling tools.

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