get_sessions_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return behavior ('Aggregated report object with overall findings, patterns, and per-section summaries across all participants') and emphasizes scope ('ALL sessions'). It does not mention side effects or access requirements, but for a read-only report tool this is adequate.

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 well-structured with separate sections for purpose, usage, returns, and args. It is slightly longer than necessary but every sentence contributes to guidance or clarification. The front-loaded purpose is immediately clear.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter and an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, how it differs from related tools, what it returns, and what the parameter means. No significant gaps remain.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage (only a title 'Study Id'). The description compensates by explicitly listing the argument: 'Args: study_id: The unique identifier of the study.' Though minimal, it adds enough meaning for a simple single parameter.

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: 'Get an aggregated analysis report across ALL sessions in a study.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by explicitly naming alternatives for single-session and participant-level reports.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this for study-level synthesis') and provides direct alternatives with exact function signatures: 'For a single participant's session, use get_session_report(study_id, participant_id, session_id). For all sessions by one participant, use get_participant_sessions_report(study_id, participant_id).' This is clear when/when-not guidance.

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