recover_session

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'Requires headed mode, which is the default', which is a useful behavioral requirement. However, it does not disclose what happens if the session is missing, whether the operation is safe or has side effects, or what the outcome is beyond 'complete a challenge or login'. It adds some context but leaves room for more transparency.

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 with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the critical requirement (headed mode) is stated second. It is concise and well-structured.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a key requirement. It could be more complete by explaining what a 'challenge' entails or what happens if no session exists, but for a simple recovery action it is largely 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema imposes no burden. The description correctly omits parameter details, and the baseline for parameter semantics is 4 when there are no parameters to document.

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 the action: bringing the same server browser forward to complete a challenge or login. It specifies the resource ('server browser') and the purpose, and it is distinct from sibling tools like 'login' which would initiate a new session. No ambiguity or tautology.

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?

The description implies when to use it (when a challenge or login is needed) but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it. For example, it doesn't say 'use login instead for new sessions'. The guidance is present but not explicit.

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