create_kasm_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 correctly implies a mutating, stateful operation ('Create'), but it does not mention persistence, resource consumption, permission requirements, or cleanup obligations. The only behavioral insight is that enable_sharing=True yields a usable share_id, which is helpful but too narrow to adequately disclose the side effects of provisioning a new session.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose ('Create a new Kasm session') and then adds the key parameter nuance. Each sentence earns its place; there is no redundant wording or structure.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain what the response will include (e.g., session ID, connection info) and only hints at share_id. It ignores contextual details such as how image_name maps to available workspaces (the sibling get_available_workspaces likely provides this), or why group_id is required. An agent cannot confidently call this tool without further research.

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 parameter descriptions are absent (0% coverage), so the tool description must explain parameters. It adds meaning only for enable_sharing ('get a usable share_id back'), while saying nothing about what image_name and group_id represent, how to obtain valid values, or their roles. group_id is required, and image_name is required, so leaving them unexplained is a serious gap.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Create a new Kasm session.' It is distinct from sibling tools like destroy_kasm_session, pause_kasm_session, and get_session_status. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation, but the verb and resource make the purpose immediately unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives beyond the implied 'creation' context. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., need for an available group or image), nor when not to use it (e.g., if a session already exists or if the user only needs status). The only conditional guidance is about enable_sharing, which is a parameter detail, not usage routing.

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