get_session_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Return' implies a read-only operation, and the list of returned data adds transparency. However, it doesn't explicitly state there are no side effects, what happens for an invalid session_id, or whether the data is a snapshot. For a simple get tool this is adequate, though 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, compact sentence that clearly front-loads the verb and immediately follows with the key outputs. Every word contributes; there is no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 read-only tool with one parameter, the description covers the main purpose and listed outputs. However, with no output schema, the agent is not told the return format or how errors are signaled (e.g., missing session). This is a moderate gap for an agent deciding whether to call the tool and how to interpret the result.

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%, so the description must compensate for the sole parameter, session_id. It does not mention the parameter at all, leaving the agent to infer its meaning solely from the name 'Session Id' in the schema. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema field name.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and lists concrete resources (session state, latest goal, node count, next lifecycle step). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_learning_goal or get_review_state, making the tool's purpose immediately identifiable.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, without indicating when it is appropriate (e.g., for a high-level session overview) or when to prefer other tools like get_mastery_status or get_learning_goal. Given the large sibling list, this is a clear gap.

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