chart_get_session

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds that it reads both the native session ID and symbol-advertised sessions, but it does not explain why the tool is marked non-idempotent or what openWorld implies about the live chart read.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and every clause contributes to explaining what the tool reads. Nothing is buried or repeated.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what comes back, and it does identify the returned content (native session ID plus advertised regular/extended sessions). It could more fully describe the response shape, but it is nearly complete for a simple read operation with fully documented parameters and safety annotations.

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 both optional parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description does not mention target_id or expected_layout_id at all, so the baseline 3 is appropriate since it adds no parameter-level context beyond what the schema provides.

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 names a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('native trading-session ID and symbol-advertised sessions'), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the mutating sibling chart_set_session, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: a getter for session info, so an agent can infer it should be used when it needs to know the current session rather than change it. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative guidance.

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