nexalayer_get_session

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: credentials are withheld by default and gated behind include_credentials=true, plus a 'never log them' sensitivity warning that an agent would not infer from the annotations.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and return content, followed by the credential caveat. Nothing wasted and no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully states what comes back (status and proxy endpoint) and conditions the credential fields. It is nearly complete for a simple two-param read tool, though a hint about session_id format or error behavior when the session is missing would close the remaining gap.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains include_credentials (default false, credentials omitted unless true), which is the non-obvious parameter, but says nothing about session_id beyond its presence in the name/required list. Partial compensation rather than full.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('one session's status and proxy endpoint'), so the agent knows this fetches a single session's details rather than listing or mutating. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nexalayer_session_health, which also reads session status, leaving ambiguity among siblings.

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?

Usage is implied: read one session's status/endpoint by id. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to alternatives such as nexalayer_session_health for deeper health data or nexalayer_session_usage for usage metrics.

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