mutualAuthDeriveSession

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the return type (MutualAuthSession with fields) and failure reason, but does not address side effects, permissions, or state modifications. The description adds useful behavioral context but is incomplete.

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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the second adds computational details. No unnecessary words, but it could be slightly more 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?

Given the complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers the purpose, equivalence condition, and return type. It lacks details on failure reasons and parameter schemas, but the schema provides those. It is mostly complete for a derivation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It references the inputs but does not elaborate on their structure or constraints.

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 verb 'derive' and the specific resource 'shared mutual-auth session record'. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like mutualAuthVerifyAttest by specifying the derivation process and the requirement that both parties compute identical session_id given identical inputs.

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 explains when to use this tool: after both sides have Attests and need to derive the shared session. It implies the proper context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools.

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