ck_session

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behaviors. It discloses that 'switch' requires confirm: true and that 'status' resolves from project binding if session_id omitted. However, it does not mention side effects, required permissions, or error conditions beyond these basic traits.

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 extremely concise: three sentences covering purpose, three modes, and key parameter constraints. No redundant information, front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 presence of an output schema (so return values need not be detailed), the description covers the main behaviors and parameter usage. It omits potential error states or permission requirements but is adequate for a session management 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the mode values (list, status, switch), confirming behavior (confirm: true required for switch), and specifying limit defaults and session_id optionality, going beyond the schema descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Enumerate and manage governed sessions.' It then breaks down three distinct modes (list, status, switch) with brief, specific explanations, differentiating the tool from siblings.

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 defines each mode's use case (e.g., 'list' for enumerating sessions, 'status' for current session details, 'switch' for changing binding) but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives among siblings.

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