Sessionize

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a list of sessions, but doesn't describe key traits like whether it's read-only (implied by 'Get'), error handling (e.g., if speaker not found), pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: two concise sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and output. There is zero waste or redundancy, making it easy to understand quickly without unnecessary details.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and output but lacks details on behavioral traits, error cases, or how it differs from siblings. Without annotations or output schema, more context would be helpful for an agent to use it effectively.

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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. The schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting 'speakerName' as required and 'eventId' as optional with a default. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate or add extra meaning.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Get all sessions for a specific speaker' specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('sessions'), and 'Returns the list of sessions the speaker is presenting' clarifies the output. It distinguishes from siblings like 'getSessions' (which likely gets all sessions) and 'findSpeaker' (which finds speaker details), but could be more explicit about differentiation.

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 usage by stating it's for a 'specific speaker,' suggesting it should be used when you have a speaker name and want their sessions. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to use this versus alternatives like 'findSession' or 'getSessions,' nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites beyond the required parameter.

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