Session Detail

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds the return-content scope and the prerequisite dependency on list_sessions, which is useful context. It does not disclose edge-case behavior like missing/invalid session IDs, but for a read-only fetch tool this is a minor gap.

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 filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the workflow dependency is stated compactly in the second. Every word earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly shoulders the burden of describing the return values, and it does so thoroughly. Combined with full parameter schema coverage, complete safety annotations, and a stated prerequisite workflow, only minor gaps remain (e.g., behavior when a session is not found).

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 are already described in the input schema, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds a small but real increment by indicating where sessionId comes from (the output of rybbit_list_sessions), though it adds nothing about siteId beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Get detailed session information') and enumerates the contents (page views, events, user traits, device info, location, full event timeline), which sets it apart from siblings like rybbit_list_sessions and rybbit_get_session_locations. The phrase 'detailed' plus the content list makes its scope unambiguous.

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 second sentence gives an explicit workflow instruction: 'Use rybbit_list_sessions first to find session IDs.' This tells the agent when this tool fits in a multi-step flow. It does not name when-not-to-use alternatives (e.g., get_session_locations for location-only queries), so it stops short of a full 5.

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