Read Session Activity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context the annotations cannot: that only 'retained' activity is returned and that the default call is non-blocking. It stops short of describing pagination or what max_events does to the result shape, which the output schema partly covers.

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?

One sentence, zero filler, with the default path stated before the escape hatch to the sibling. Nothing could be removed without losing routing information.

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?

An output schema exists and all parameters are documented, so return values need not be explained. The only residual ambiguity is that the schema says a supplied cursor causes a wait, while the description points to terminal_wait_activity for waiting — an agent may hesitate over which call blocks, though the intent is recoverable.

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 cursor, max_events, timeout_ms and session_id are all documented structurally. The description reinforces the cursor's role but adds no format, default, or interaction detail beyond the schema text. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the weight.

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 and resource ('Read retained Session activity') and immediately scopes the default behavior ('immediately when cursor is omitted'). It names the sibling terminal_wait_activity as the contrasting operation, so an agent can distinguish the two 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 an explicit decision rule: omit cursor for an immediate read, use terminal_wait_activity to wait on a known activity cursor. This is exactly the when-to-use / when-to-use-something-else routing an agent needs, stated in one sentence.

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