Get chute session

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

readOnlyHint already establishes the safety profile, and the description adds genuine payload context beyond the annotation: the response includes the widget config and the animals processed (entries). With no output schema, this return-content disclosure is a real value-add.

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 sentence, front-loaded with verb+resource, no filler. Every clause earns its place by adding the lookup key and the returned contents.

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 simple two-parameter read tool, the description covers the lookup key and the notable response contents, and the annotation covers safety. Permissions or pagination are unaddressed, but the small surface area makes this nearly complete.

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%, so both parameters (session_id UUID, optional farm_id with default behavior) are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the UUID lookup and adds no format or syntax detail beyond it.

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 (Get) and resource (a single chute session) with its scope (by its UUID), which clearly separates it from the list_chute_sessions sibling. It does not name any sibling explicitly, 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?

The 'single session by UUID' framing implies when to use this versus list_chute_sessions, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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