get_session

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses return contents, the unredacted nature, and the body truncation behavior. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool has side effects or modifies the archive, though the 'get' verb implies read-only. It also does not discuss error behavior for invalid indices or missing files.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence summary, a short differentiator, and a clear Args list. Every sentence adds value, information is front-loaded, and the format makes scanning easy. It is concise without sacrificing needed detail.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the main aspects well: purpose, output contents, parameter details, and usage context. It does not specify the exact return format or error handling, but the listed fields (request/response start lines, headers, bodies, timers, flags) give a solid picture. Slightly more detail on returned structure or failure modes would earn a 5.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds rich meaning for all four parameters in the Args section. It explains what saz_path refers to, how index is interpreted and sourced, what include_body does, and what max_body_chars limits. This fully compensates for the sparse 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 clearly identifies the tool as retrieving full details of one session, listing specific contents (start lines, headers, bodies, timers, flags). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating it is the only tool that returns the complete unredacted URL and bodies, making the purpose 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?

The description provides explicit guidance: use for deep inspection of a specific session, and notes that index is shown by list_sessions, establishing a clear workflow. It also states this is the only tool for unredacted data, implicitly telling the user not to use sibling tools for this purpose.

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