Oura Sessions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by noting the scope requirement. However, it omits behavioral details like pagination, privacy modes, or default output format, which are present only in parameter descriptions. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points or sections) that could improve readability for an agent. It is efficient but could be better organized.

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 complexity (9 parameters, output schema exists, many siblings), the description is minimal. It covers basic purpose and a prerequisite but does not explain pagination behavior, privacy modes, error conditions, or typical use cases. A score of 3 reflects acceptable but not comprehensive completeness.

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 89%, and the description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what is already in the schema. Since the schema provides detailed descriptions, the description does not enhance parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 specifies the verb 'list' and the resource 'Oura app sessions', distinguishing between guided and unguided sessions. It also includes a prerequisite condition ('when the user granted session scope'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous compared to sibling list tools.

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 mentions a prerequisite (session scope) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like oura_list_sleep or oura_list_workouts. With many sibling tools, more comparative context would be beneficial. A score of 3 reflects adequate but not proactive guidance.

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