session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently frames the tool as a passive read of sublevel's internal knowledge, listing state categories rather than actions, which implies no mutation. It does not disclose details like cost, rate limits, or whether any cached data may be stale, so it falls short of being fully transparent.

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 one information-dense sentence with a clear front-loaded subject and a concise list of covered state. Every phrase earns its place, and the imperative 'Call this first' is placed at the end as a natural follow-on. No filler or repetition.

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?

The tool takes no parameters and has an output schema, so the description only needs to explain what the call represents and when to call it. It lists the full scope of session knowledge and gives usage direction. An agent has everything needed to invoke this tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters and no input schema properties, so there is no parameter meaning to explain. Baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter noise. Nothing is missing here.

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 query of sublevel's knowledge about the open Live set, enumerating specific content: tracks, device chains, target, budget, bypass state, proposals, and jobs. It does not use a strong imperative verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', but 'What sublevel knows...' is unambiguous. The detail helps distinguish it from state-related siblings like history, readiness, and monitor.

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 explicitly instructs 'Call this first,' giving clear when-to-use guidance for establishing session context. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but for a session-introspection tool at the start of a workflow this is sufficient context.

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