qui_validate_session

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is established. The description adds useful context about how arguments are mapped (path/query/body), which is a behavioral detail. However, it does not disclose additional traits like authentication requirements or rate limits. This is acceptable given the simple read-only nature and the annotation coverage.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the endpoint and gives concise invocation guidance. No unnecessary words, but it could arguably be slightly more informative about the tool's purpose beyond just calling the endpoint.

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 output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It covers the essential mechanic of calling the endpoint, but lacks context on when to use it or what 'validate' means in this system. The description is adequate for a simple tool but leaves some interpretive burden on the agent.

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 is generic with only an 'arguments' free-form object, so parameter semantics are undefined. The description compensates by explaining where path, query, and body values go, but does not name any specific parameters or their meanings. For a validation endpoint, this may be sufficient, but it relies on the agent understanding the endpoint's expected inputs.

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 calls the GET /auth/validate endpoint, which aligns with the tool name 'validate_session'. It specifies a verb and resource, making the purpose apparent. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like qui_get_current_user, though the intent is fairly unique.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It only explains how to structure arguments, which is mechanical rather than contextual. Users must infer that it validates a session based on the name.

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