assetfare_v2_session_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds meaningful behavioral nuance: the read does not advance the workflow, it never signs or submits, and the session_token is caller-owned and sensitive. This goes beyond the annotation baseline.

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?

Two sentences deliver the core purpose, key behavioral constraint, and a realistic example. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter read tool with rich schema descriptions, comprehensive annotations, and an output schema present. The description covers purpose, usage timing, and behavioral guarantees, leaving no significant gap for correct invocation.

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%, and both parameters already have strong descriptions covering format, origin, sensitivity, and usage constraints. The description only mentions passing session_id and session_token in the example, which adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read an existing v2 workflow and current unsigned action.' It also states the key scope constraint, 'without advancing it,' which distinguishes it from advancing or refreshing actions. This clearly separates it from session creation, preparation, quoting, and observation 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 gives a concrete usage scenario ('after a restart') and explicitly warns that the tool is read-only and never signs or submits. However, it does not name sibling tools or provide exclusion criteria for when to use an alternative like session_refresh_action or session_observe_output. Usage context is implied rather than fully specified.

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