protocol_start_session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Start tracking a new protocol session' without mentioning side effects such as whether previous sessions are closed, if multiple sessions can coexist, or whether a session ID is returned for subsequent calls. This is a mutation operation lacking any side-effect disclosure.

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 a single sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it immediately understandable.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns or how the session is identified for future protocol logging calls, but it does not. It also fails to mention the relationship to sibling tools, leaving the agent without knowledge of the session lifecycle.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both sessionType and expectedProtocols having descriptive text. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already provides clear meanings.

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 'Start tracking a new protocol session' clearly states the action (start tracking) and the resource (protocol session). It is distinct from sibling tools like protocol_log_step and protocol_log_activity, which focus on logging events rather than initialization.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this should be called before logging steps, nor does it note any prerequisites or exclusions. The sibling context suggests other protocol tools, but no usage relationship is described.

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