get_session

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by clarifying that the response is a summary plus waiting status, not full history. It does not disclose behavior for missing sessions, error conditions, or response formatting, but the annotation safety profile lowers the burden.

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 main action and return scope are front-loaded, and the clarifying constraint about message history is placed immediately after. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter read tool with strong annotations, the description is mostly complete: it states what is returned and what is not returned. It falls slightly short by not describing the shape of the summary/status response or how to source session_id, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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%, and the description does not compensate by explaining session_id: its format, where to obtain it, or how it relates to list_sessions or get_run. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaningful semantics beyond the schema's bare field definition.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Read a session summary and waiting status.' It also draws a clear boundary with 'This is not complete message history,' which helps distinguish this tool from broader history/retrieval tools. Even without naming a sibling explicitly, the purpose is specific and actionable.

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 when to use the tool: when a summary or waiting status is needed, and not when full message history is required. However, it provides no explicit guidance about alternatives like get_status, get_run, or list_sessions, and no exclusions beyond 'not complete message history.'

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