get_session_brief

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Read-only' adds no new safety information. However, it does add useful behavioral context about what the session brief contains and the distinction between MCP connection and Design Flow session, which is beyond the structured annotations.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The read-only nature is front-loaded, the return content is stated, and the clarifying exclusion is concise and meaningful.

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 parameterless, read-only, idempotent tool with an output schema and complete annotations, the description covers all necessary context. The only additional nuance it might include is naming sibling alternatives, but the clarity of the purpose makes that unnecessary for correct invocation.

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, so parameter semantics are trivially satisfied. The description correctly focuses on return semantics rather than inputs, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 verb ('Return') and resource ('engine session brief and semantic session identity'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from conflating the MCP connection with the Design Flow session. This makes its scope clear even among many sibling 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 conveys when this tool is appropriate: when the agent needs the session brief and semantic session identity. It also provides a negative constraint by clarifying that MCP connection details are not the same as the Design Flow session, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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