session_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Isolated Gmsh worker' hints at process isolation but says nothing about resource cost, whether the session must later be closed, what happens on failure, or any permission requirements for a state-creating operation.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasted. However, it is thin to the point of under-specification rather than genuinely efficient, which caps the score at adequate.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a creation tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter documentation, the description should at minimum cover session lifecycle expectations and parameter meaning. It leaves both gaps open.

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 neither 'name' nor 'units' is documented anywhere. The description does not say what 'name' identifies (a project, a mesh model, a display label) or what unit values are legal beyond the schema's 'm' default, leaving the agent to guess.

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 ('Create') and resource ('model session'), plus the side artifact ('isolated Gmsh worker'), which distinguishes it from sibling lifecycle tools like session_status and session_close. The term 'isolated Gmsh worker' is jargon an agent may not fully decode, keeping it from 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?

No statement of when to call this versus session_status/session_close, no prerequisites, and no indication of what must exist before a session can be created. An agent can infer ordering from the lifecycle siblings, but the description provides no explicit guidance.

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