get_session

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the expected return content, the API-key requirement, and a warning about start_login. It does not describe error or not-found behavior, but for a simple read-only getter this is reasonably transparent.

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 core purpose and return fields are front-loaded in the first sentence. The access note is a separate paragraph and slightly unusual, but it is relevant context and not overly verbose. The structure is functional and every sentence contributes value.

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 one-parameter tool this is mostly complete, but with no output schema and a very large sibling set, it should at least mention that wait_for_session is the polling alternative or clarify when a session has an ID ready to retrieve. The access prerequisite is helpful but does not fully cover the selection context.

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?

The schema already covers the single parameter fully with 'Session ID' at 100% coverage. The description only repeats 'by ID' and adds no additional semantics about format, required length, or lookup behavior, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource ('session'), the operation ('Get by ID'), and the key return fields (status, verification details, proof token if verified). It is specific enough to be understood, though it does not differentiate get_session from the closely related wait_for_session sibling.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus wait_for_session, list_auth_sessions, or create_session. The access note about PROOF_API_KEY and restart is a prerequisite, not usage guidance, and the claim that 'start_login does NOT open this tool' is confusing rather than a clear exclusion.

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