Inspect a Runtime Session

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description aligns by saying 'Read'. It adds value by naming the concrete session aspects inspected (scope hash, lifecycle status, budget, pending authorization count, ledger integrity) and introduces no contradictions.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the action, the resource, and the data items of interest without filler or repetition of the schema.

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?

With one required parameter fully documented, an output schema present, and annotations covering read-only/idempotent safety, the description is complete for correct invocation. No essential behavior or input detail is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the only parameter is already described as an opaque session identifier. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but there is nothing missing for the agent to supply a valid session_id.

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 opens with a precise verb, 'Read', and enumerates the exact resource: one session's scope hash, lifecycle status, budget, pending authorization count, and ledger integrity. This distinguishes it from session lifecycle tools like session_start/session_close and by scoping to a single session rather than a general stack status.

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 phrase 'for one session' implies the tool is appropriate when a caller needs a single session's state, but it does not explicitly contrast this with livingstack.status or explain when to choose another sibling. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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