get_session_overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: it reports what is not visible and cautions the agent not to guess, and it notes the returned text is sent to the AI model. The only weakness is the oddly framed model-disclosure sentence, which is vague about implications.

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?

The entry-point instruction is front-loaded and the enumeration of returned facts is efficient. It is slightly long and the final sentence about model delivery is a bit loose, but every sentence carries usable information.

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 must describe the return payload, and it does so by enumerating the fields it surfaces. Combined with annotations covering safety, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the terminology mix of 'session' vs 'stream' slightly blurs the target object.

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% and the single streamName parameter's default behavior (falls back to CONFCAP_STREAM or the owner's only stream) is documented in the schema, not the description. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the 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?

The description states concretely what the call returns: live vs stopped status, amount of live text held, whether transcripts were saved, question counts, glossary presence, and next steps. That is a specific resource-level overview and is more informative than the name alone. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_stream_status or get_stream_context, which is the only thing keeping it from 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?

"Start here when asked about a session or event" gives a clear entry-point rule, and "what to do next" implies follow-up routing. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative (e.g., use get_stream_status for live-only checks), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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