screenconnect_session_get_guest_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavior beyond that: uptimeSeconds is derived and returns null when unavailable, which tells the agent how to interpret the value. It says nothing about cost, size, auth, or when guest inventory may be empty.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the null-handling caveat is placed parenthetically right after the field it qualifies. It is efficient, though the terseness is part of why the includeRaw gap goes unaddressed.

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 no output schema, the description does outline the return payload (inventory, online state, uptimeSeconds), which is adequate for a small read-only tool. However, one of two parameters is entirely unexplained and there is no differentiation from the very similar sibling get tools, leaving real gaps for this context.

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 says nothing about either parameter. In particular, includeRaw is completely undocumented in both schema and description, so the agent cannot tell what toggling it does or when to use it, even though sessionId is at least pattern-constrained in the schema.

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 gives a concrete verb ('Get') and a specific resource set: guest inventory, online state, and derived uptimeSeconds, all scoped to a session. That is clearly different from session listing/search siblings, though it never names screenconnect_session_get_details or screenconnect_session_get as the alternative for broader session data.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to the closely named siblings like screenconnect_session_get_details. The agent must infer from the noun 'guest info' alone that this is the per-session guest lookup.

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