qa_get_current_session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Read') and hints at returned data, but it does not disclose authentication prerequisites, potential error states, or whether any state is affected. For a zero-parameter read, the basic safety profile is communicated, but details are thin.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource. There is no filler or redundant restatement; every part adds information about what the tool returns.

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 tool's low complexity (no parameters, no nested objects), the description is reasonably complete: it identifies the resource and the key contents of the return value. However, without an output schema, it could be more explicit about the exact shape of 'progress counters' and what 'validity' means, so it is not a perfect 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema already covers 100% of them, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed. Baseline 4 for a zero-parameter tool is appropriate.

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 clear verb ('Read') and resource ('authenticated server session'), and mentions the specific contents (validity and progress counters). It is distinguishable from siblings like qa_get_current_round and qa_get_game_state, though 'from Today' is somewhat ambiguous and not explicitly contrasted with those alternatives.

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 implicitly suggests this tool is for retrieving the current server session, including validity and progress counters, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over the many sibling getters such as qa_get_current_round, qa_get_game_state, or qa_get_attempts. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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