Initialize Session

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

Annotations already indicate non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds that it does not call reviewer models, clarifying a key behavioral limitation beyond what annotations provide, without contradiction.

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 with no wasted words: the first states the purpose, the second clarifies a key limitation. Highly efficient.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and a major limitation. However, it lacks information about return values (expected to be a session ID) and does not mention required parameters. Given no output schema, slightly more detail would be better, but still adequate.

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?

Schema coverage is 50% with descriptions for task and review_focus, and enum-based constraints for caller and response_format. The description does not add extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for moderate coverage.

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 creates a durable cross-review session after probing availability and model selection, and explicitly notes it does not call reviewer models. This differentiates from sibling tools like probe_peers or session_start_round.

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 should be used after probing provider availability and before starting review rounds, providing a clear usage context. It stops short of explicitly stating when not to use it or naming alternatives, but the context from sibling names fills gaps.

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