nexalayer_session_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the shape of the result (health score + rotation recommendation), which is useful given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about score scale, recommendation values, or failure modes.

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?

A single ten-word sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though so terse that it arguably underserves a tool with no output schema.

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?

For a read-only, single-parameter tool whose annotations already cover safety, the description is nearly sufficient — and it helpfully states what is returned despite the absence of an output schema. It still leaves the meaning and range of 'health score' and the possible rotation recommendations unspecified, which matters because the agent may act on that recommendation via nexalayer_rotate_session.

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% for the single required parameter, so the description would need to compensate and it does not — session_id is never mentioned. However, the parameter is a self-evident identifier whose name leaves little ambiguity, so the practical risk is low.

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 names a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('health score and rotation recommendation for a session'), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like nexalayer_session_usage or nexalayer_get_balance. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with the closest sibling (session_usage), so it isn't a 5.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the call to make when deciding whether a session should be rotated, especially given nexalayer_rotate_session exists as a sibling. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no named alternative for related questions such as raw usage.

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