Get Session

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'local' scoping detail, which is useful, but does not disclose behavior such as error handling or whether an unknown thread id returns null or throws.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying what the tool returns and how it identifies the resource.

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 simple read operation with a complete input schema, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It could be slightly richer by explicitly noting that this targets a locally stored CLI session and should be used with a pre-known thread id, but those are implied.

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 input schema provides full descriptions for all 4 parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to re-explain them. The only parameter echo in the description is 'thread id', which adds no new semantic value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') with a specific resource ('one local Cloudeval CLI session') and the identifying criterion ('by thread id'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like sessions_list or sessions_search, which return collections or perform search.

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 implies use when a known thread id is available, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over sessions_list, sessions_search, or sessions_export. The usage context is only implied rather than stated.

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