Open a finished session

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuinely valuable behavioral context beyond them: it clarifies the tool returns a dashboard link and does NOT start a browser, correcting the natural but wrong assumption that 'replay' spawns a browser session. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, zero fluff, and the most decision-critical information (usage condition) is front-loaded. Every clause earns its place: the trigger, the behavioral clarification, the return value, and the sibling routing.

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 tool of this complexity — one optional parameter, full schema coverage, strong annotations, simple return value — nothing an agent needs is missing. It covers when to call, what happens (no browser), what comes back (dashboard link), and where to go for the related task, despite having no output schema to lean on.

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 100%, so the parameter (steel_session_id with UUID pattern and 'Finished Steel UUID; omit for latest released') is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is appropriate — baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('watch or replay a finished session') and a concrete outcome ('Returns its Steel dashboard link without starting a browser'). Explicitly differentiates from sibling steel_session_diagnostics, and the contrast with steel_session_live_view (finished vs. live) is evident from context.

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 an explicit, restrictive trigger ('Call only when the user explicitly asks to watch or replay a finished session') and names the alternative tool for the neighboring case ('use steel_session_diagnostics to inspect or explain activity'). An agent needs zero inference to decide when to invoke this.

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