ise_mnt_session_by_username

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

While no annotations are provided, the description does disclose the return format ('Returns raw XML'), which is a useful behavioral trait. It could elaborate on whether the endpoint errors if the username has no active session or what 'Full SD username information' contains, but noting raw XML output is meaningful. The 'GET' and endpoint path imply read-only behavior.

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 description is a single concise sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, endpoint, and return format. It's front-loaded with the purpose. It could potentially mention alternatives for contrast, but there's no waste or redundancy in the text.

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 lookup tool with 100% schema coverage, full endpoint documentation, return format disclosure, and clear parameter help, the description is reasonably complete. It could benefit from noting error behavior when no session exists and what the 'full information' includes, but given the tool's simplicity and rich schema, it covers the essentials.

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 schema documents both parameters. The description adds value by specifying the endpoint path demonstrates username is a path parameter, and the deployment parameter guidance is fully explained in the schema. The description itself doesn't add much beyond the schema, but at 100% coverage the baseline 3 applies; the endpoint disclosure slightly enriches the username semantics.

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 clearly states it gets 'Full SD username Information' via a specific endpoint (GET /admin/API/mnt/Session/UserName/{username}). The verb 'Get' plus resource 'Full SD username Information' makes the purpose clear. It is distinguishable from siblings like ise_mnt_session_by_mac, ise_mnt_session_by_ip, and ise_mnt_session_by_id, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 mentions this is for 'Sessions' and by 'username', which implies when to use it versus sibling session tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this instead of session_by_mac, session_by_ip, or session_by_id, nor contrast with ise_mnt_active_session_list. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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