inspect_research_session

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does declare 'no mutation' which is useful, and notes the 'explicitly allowed' restriction, but it doesn't explain what 'compact checkpoint/session metadata' contains, what happens if a session is not explicitly allowed (error behavior), whether pagination/limits apply, or what the return format looks like. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, more behavioral disclosure is needed.

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?

Single concise sentence with zero redundancy. It front-loads the action ('Read') and includes the key constraint ('no mutation'). Efficient, though slightly terse given the gaps identified in other dimensions.

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?

This is a relatively simple 2-parameter read tool with no output schema, but the constraint 'explicitly allowed session' raises questions about error handling and access control that aren't addressed. The 'compact metadata' phrasing is vague about what is actually returned. For a simple read tool with no annotations, this describes the core purpose adequately but leaves access-control behavior and return semantics underspecified.

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 the description should compensate, but it mentions no parameters by name. Both session_id (type string) and chat_id (type integer) are documented only in the schema with basic type info. The description adds context that the session must be 'explicitly allowed' which indirectly relates to session_id, but it doesn't clarify the purpose of chat_id or how it relates to session_id. With 2 params and 0% coverage, the description must add more than it does.

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 states a specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('checkpoint/session metadata'), and scoping ('for an explicitly allowed session'), clearly distinguishing it as a read-only inspection tool. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'get_message_context' which might partially overlap in purpose, so it doesn't fully earn 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 description notes 'explicitly allowed session' which implies a pre-authorization requirement, but provides no guidance on when to use this versus siblings like get_message_context, list_allowed_chats, or retrieve_evidence. No exclusions or alternatives are named despite a rich sibling context where such guidance would be valuable.

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