session_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that a session must be started ('Требует session_start') and clarifies that the tool does not navigate ('без навигации'), which implies a read-only, non-destructive action. However, it does not describe error conditions, return format (though output schema exists), or any side effects. It adds some useful behavioral context beyond the name.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the tool's primary purpose. There is no fluff or redundant wording. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it leaves out optional parameter details. It earns its place but is not overly verbose, so it scores high but not perfect due to missing essential context.

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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no annotations) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the core function and prerequisite. However, it omits any explanation of the max_chars parameter and does not mention what happens if no session is active. While the output schema likely defines the return format, the description is not fully complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, especially regarding parameter usage.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description does not explain the parameter max_chars. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning about its purpose, limits, or how it affects the output. With a single parameter and no description, the agent has to guess its semantics, so the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 tool returns the text of the current session page, and the phrase 'без навигации' (without navigation) distinguishes it from navigation-related siblings like session_navigate or fetch_page. The verb is implicit ('get') but the resource is specific. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 usage: to retrieve the text of the current session page. It also specifies a prerequisite (requires session_start), which is a usage condition. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like session_links or fetch_page, nor does it mention exclusions. The usage context is implied but not explicit.

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