personal_session_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does reveal meaningful behavior: it is a blocking gate, and missing capture or finalize causes failure. It also enumerates what is checked. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what warnings mean, whether allow_warnings can bypass failures, or what the response shape looks like.

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 compact and front-loads the purpose before listing the main failure condition. The dense jargon ('closed loop', 'v2 completeness') slightly hurts comprehensibility, but the structure is efficient and every clause adds information.

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?

For a two-parameter check with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits allow_warnings semantics, response/error behavior, and any routing guidance against sibling validation tools. An agent would need to infer several important details before calling it confidently.

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 description must compensate. It explains that turn_id is required for personal turns, but it says nothing about allow_warnings, its default, its effect, or the format/expected values of turn_id. Half the parameter surface is effectively undocumented.

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 identifies the tool as a hard pre-answer gate and lists the dimensions it checks: turn receipt, capture closed loop, structure, and v2 completeness. This goes beyond the bare name and distinguishes it from capture/finalize operations. However, 'v2 completeness' is left unexplained and no explicit verb such as 'validate' or 'check' appears.

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?

It gives an explicit use window: run this before answering or claiming the profile has been updated. It also states a hard requirement for personal turns: turn_id must be supplied. It does not mention when not to use it or how it compares with siblings like personal_preflight_turn or personal_validate, but the context is clear.

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