get_session

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds real context beyond them: the authentication prerequisite and the fact that the proof token is only returned if verified. It does not mention rate limits or error behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and return values, then the access caveat in a separate, clearly labeled block. No wasted sentences, though the restart-the-server instruction is slightly verbose for a tool description.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully summarizes what comes back (status, verification details, proof token). Combined with the auth requirement, an agent has what it needs to call this simple single-parameter read tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% for the single 'id' parameter, so the schema already fully documents it. 'By ID' in the description adds nothing the schema doesn't already say; baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Get a session by ID') and even previews the return payload (status, verification details, proof token). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like wait_for_session or list_auth_sessions, so it stops short of 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?

Gives a clear precondition ('needs a Proof account. Set PROOF_API_KEY and restart this server') and an explicit exclusion ('start_login does NOT open this tool'). It never names the alternative to pick instead (e.g. wait_for_session for pending sessions), so it lacks the full when/when-not/alternatives package.

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