session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions one distinctive behavior ('without closing its session') for save-script, but otherwise leaves key traits unexplained—such as whether operations are read-only or mutating, what 'armed open-to-destination' means, or what side effects the publish action has. The jargon-heavy phrasing obscures rather than clarifies.

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 sentence that packs three operations without obvious filler. It is front-loaded with the simplest action ('List active sessions') and remains reasonably compact, though the third clause is long and jargon-heavy.

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 multi-action tool with 26 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description does not explain which parameters apply to which action, what results look like, or what prerequisites exist. The complexity demands far more contextual detail than a single dense sentence provides.

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%, so the schema fully documents each parameter's meaning. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail and does not map parameters to specific actions, but per the baseline rule, 3 is appropriate when the schema already covers parameter semantics.

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 three concrete actions (list sessions, print state directory, publish save-script) tied to the session resource. It is more specific than a tautology and gives enough verb+resource structure, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools beyond the session domain.

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 implies usage by enumerating actions, so an agent can infer when to call it (e.g., list active sessions, get state dir, save-script publish). However, it provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to rely on the action enum and general context.

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