get_session

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool returns JSON and artifact paths, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not mention permissions, error handling, or side effects, which would be beneficial.

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 two sentences: first defines the tool's output, second gives usage guidance. Every word adds value, with no repetition or fluff.

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 simple retrieval tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key outputs (graph JSON with nodes/edges/statuses, artifact paths) and suggests use cases. Could be slightly improved by noting what happens if sessionId is invalid.

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 single parameter 'sessionId' is a string with no description in the schema (0% coverage). The tool description adds no explanation about what sessionId represents (e.g., 'the ID of the session to retrieve'), leaving the agent to infer from context.

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 verb 'Return' and the resource 'current reasoning graph as JSON' along with on-disk artifact paths. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_sessions (which lists sessions) and add_thought (which modifies graph).

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 explicitly advises using this tool 'to review where things stand or recover the exact graph file path,' providing clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the siblings list helps differentiate.

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