get_learning_configuration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'Return' signals a read-only action, which is useful, but the description does not go beyond that to mention response structure, errors, session validity, or any other behavioral context. It is adequate for a simple getter, but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the core purpose immediately and every word contributes meaning.

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 low complexity of a one-parameter getter, the description is mostly complete: it identifies the session and names the three kinds of returned information. However, without an output schema or annotations, a bit more detail about the return shape or potential failure conditions would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 does not explicitly explain the session_id parameter or its expected format/meaning. It only indirectly references it through 'session's'. For a single required parameter this is somewhat recoverable, but the description should at least tie session_id to the session being queried.

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 a specific action ('Return') on a specific resource ('the session's active learning mode, overrides and preferences'). This is distinct from sibling tools like set_learning_configuration, which would modify rather than read.

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?

'Return' implies this is the read/get operation for learning configuration, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings like get_session_info or set_learning_configuration. The intended context is clear but no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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