session_show

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by itemizing the return payload, which matters because there is no output schema, and by noting any pending route change is surfaced. It stops short of describing size, pagination, or failure behavior when no open session exists.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded: the return contract first, then the usage routing. The long middle enumeration is dense but earns its place given the absence of an output schema, and there is no filler or restatement of the name.

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 carries the burden of describing returns and does so thoroughly across scope, objective, route, per-file state, proposals, and pending changes. Combined with annotations that cover the safety profile, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly on the first try.

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 coverage is 100% and the single sessionId parameter already documents both its origin and the omit-to-use-newest-session fallback, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax or format detail about the parameter beyond that. Baseline 3 is correct for a fully documented single-parameter 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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('a guided-review session in full, as JSON') and then enumerates exactly what the payload covers: scope, objective, route, per-file state, proposals, and pending route change. It also draws the boundary against the sibling review_context ('for a single file, review_context is smaller'), so an agent can distinguish it without opening either schema.

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?

Gives two explicit invocation conditions ('call it first on a READO GUIDED REVIEW prompt' and 'to find your place after losing context') plus the negative case that routes the agent to a smaller alternative for a single file. Nothing about when to prefer this over siblings is left to inference.

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