get_session_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses side-effect-free behavior ('Renders no images and uses no step budget'), availability at any lifecycle point, and the idle-vs-running state differences (no task/state while idle, default_scene returned instead). It also explains task_locked semantics, which an agent could not infer elsewhere.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose then constraints, and every sentence adds usable information. The dense return-field enumeration is long but each element (eef_pos_m units, gripper fields) earns its place for an agent with no output schema.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return contract, and it fully enumerates run, status, step, max_steps, steps_left, task, task_locked, and state including units. Combined with the idle-state caveat, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description instead documents the rich return shape, which is useful but not a parameter concern.

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+resource ('Read the state of the current run') and immediately enumerates the scope (task context, instruction, step count, robot state). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling list_tasks, so an agent can route correctly without opening a 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 explicit when-to-use conditions ('callable at any time, including before the first reset_task') and names the alternative for a different need ('To see which tasks are available, use list_tasks'). This is unambiguous routing guidance.

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