Open a session on the Agent Context Network by authenticating with a bearer token; the server resolves scope and access rights automatically.
Open a session. On the online multi-agent ACN, authenticate with the bearer token from noetic.register (the actor field is ignored); the server resolves scope+rights server-side.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| actor | No | ||
| token | No | ||
| maxResponseTokens | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the actor field is ignored, that authentication uses a bearer token, and that scope/rights are resolved server-side. It does not discuss session lifecycle or repeated-call behavior, but the disclosed auth semantics go well beyond a minimal connect description.
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 efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and packs in token source, parameter caveat, and server-side authorization behavior. Every phrase earns its place with no filler.
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?
The description covers the essential auth flow and parameter caveats, but with no output schema and no annotations, it omits what the tool returns (e.g., a session handle) and the meaning of maxResponseTokens. These are meaningful gaps for an agent invoking the tool.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify token (bearer token from noetic.register) and actor (ignored), but maxResponseTokens is left unexplained. The compensation is partial rather than complete.
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 opens with the specific verb+resource pair 'Open a session' and immediately scopes it to the online multi-agent ACN. It also references noetic.register as the token source, which distinguishes it from the registration and other 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 gives clear usage context: it is the session-opening step on the online ACN and requires a bearer token from noetic.register. It does not explicitly list exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.