get_session

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

Given no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clarifies the tool returns raw, unprocessed interaction data and contrasts it with an analyzed report, which implies read-only behavior. It does not describe potential limitations or errors, but the data type is clearly conveyed.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by succinct use-case and alternative. The Args section is slightly repetitive ('unique identifier of the...') but the overall structure is clean and every line contributes value.

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 an output schema provided, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the three-parameter dependency, the contrast with the report tool, and the recommended call to get_participants first, making this complete for a getter tool.

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 0% (no descriptions in input schema), so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. The Args list labels each ID as 'the unique identifier of the study/participant/session', which is helpful but minimal. The note to call get_participants first adds practical context for obtaining these IDs.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource combination: 'Get raw transcript and interaction events for a single participant session.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_session_report by explicitly mentioning the AI-analyzed summary alternative.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when the user wants to read what a participant actually said verbatim, or review the full unprocessed interaction log.' It also names the alternative tool (get_session_report) and gives ordering advice with get_participants.

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