session_relationships

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context: relationship detection is based on shared agents or same orchestrator, and the agent_id constraint ('must belong to the session') is disclosed. However, it never states whether the operation is strictly read-only, what the return payload looks like, or how errors surface (e.g., agent_id not belonging to the session).

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?

Well-structured and front-loaded: one-line summary, trigger list, mechanism sentence, parameter list. Minor redundancy between the opening summary and the closing mechanism sentence, but every section earns its place and nothing is bloated.

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 2-param, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description covers purpose, when-to-call, mechanism, and parameter constraints. The only notable gap is the absence of any description of the return value/format, which matters more since there is no output schema.

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 0%, and the description compensates with a PARAMETERS section: session_id is defined as the 'base session' and agent_id as 'your agent ID (must belong to the session)', adding real meaning beyond bare property names. Not a 5 because it doesn't explain ID formats or elaborate on the orchestrator concept.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Find sessions related to a given session') and adds the distinguishing mechanism ('based on shared agents or same orchestrator'). This clearly separates it from siblings like session_context, session_statistics, or search_sessions, which target a single session or a search-return.

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 an explicit AUTOMATIC TRIGGERS block with concrete trigger phrases ('What other sessions is this related to?') and scenarios (prior work by same team, shared agents/orchestrator). Lacks when-not-to-use or named alternatives, so it stops shy of a 5.

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