dba_sessionInfo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying it's likely read-only, but doesn't confirm if it requires specific permissions, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. There's no wasted verbiage, and it fits well within the context of a concise tool definition.

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 complexity of a database session information tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'session information' includes (e.g., connection details, queries, status), how results are structured, or any behavioral aspects like error handling. This leaves too many unknowns for effective tool 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?

The description mentions 'for user', which aligns with the single parameter 'user_name', but adds no further semantic context beyond what the schema's title 'User Name' implies. With 0% schema description coverage, the parameter is undocumented in the schema, but the description only partially compensates by hinting at its purpose without detailing format or examples. This meets the baseline for minimal compensation.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'Teradata session information for user', making the purpose unambiguous. It specifies the target resource (session information) and the scope (for a specific user). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dba_userSqlList' or 'dba_userDelay', which might also relate to user-specific database information.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for usage, or compare it to sibling tools like 'dba_userSqlList' (which might list SQL queries) or 'dba_userDelay' (which might show user delays). Without such guidance, an agent might struggle to choose between these user-focused dba tools.

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