session_interactions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool shows 'tool calls, queries, and results' but doesn't specify format, pagination behavior (despite a 'limit' parameter), whether it's read-only, or any performance characteristics. For a tool with 2 parameters and output schema, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core functionality, the second adds the use case. There's no wasted text, and it's appropriately front-loaded with the main purpose. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the use case into the first sentence.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description provides a clear purpose but lacks parameter explanations and detailed behavioral context. The existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it should still address how the tool behaves with its parameters. This is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description doesn't mention either parameter ('session_id' or 'limit'), so it adds no semantic information beyond what's inferred from the schema's property names and defaults. With 2 parameters completely undocumented, this meets the baseline for adequate but incomplete coverage.

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: 'View what happened in the current or past sessions' with specific details about what it shows ('tool calls, queries, and results'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'recent_sessions' by focusing on session content rather than session listings. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other content-review tools like 'digest_conversation' or 'decision_timeline'.

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 implied usage context ('useful for reviewing what was discussed and decided'), which suggests when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools. For example, it doesn't clarify whether this is better than 'digest_conversation' for certain review tasks.

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