session_get_cell

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full transparency burden. It reveals a key behavioral trait—recomputing stale values—rather than presenting a plain read, and explains rich-value projection with a concrete graph example. It does omit error/edge behaviors, but the core side-effectful recomputation is explicitly disclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence with a compact illustrative parenthetical. Every clause earns its place: the core read behavior, the stale recomputation side effect, and a concrete example of the rich JSON output. No filler or restatement of the name.

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 two-parameter reader, it covers the critical behaviors (stale recompute and typed JSON projection). However, it doesn't explain the basic return format for non-rich cells, the session-open prerequisite, or failure behaviors. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description carries a heavier burden that it only partially satisfies.

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: it never explains the semantics of sessionId or cell, how cells are referenced, or what format is expected. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no operational meaning beyond the schema.

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 provides a concrete action and target: 'Read a cell's current value'. It is distinct from the sibling set_cell/write operations in effect, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The additional detail about recomputing stale values further clarifies intended semantics.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like session_set_cell or session_list_cells. It implies a read operation but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative conditions. This leaves the agent to infer usage purely from the tool name.

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