metashunt_load_session

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the operation is load+decimate+return, but does not disclose whether decimation is performed only in memory or persisted, whether the stored session is modified, any rate/resource limits, required permissions, or failure behavior. 'Decimate' is also used as jargon without explanation.

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 single sentence is lean, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no filler. It sacrifices informativeness for brevity, but what is present is well structured and memorable.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is under-specified. It gives a high-level output ('data + summary') but not the decimation semantics, parameter meanings, return structure, or how it relates to session listing/capture workflows. It is only minimally viable.

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 needed to explain the four parameters, but it only hints at the session and the decimation concept. max_points, threshold_pct, and abs_min_threshold_ma are completely unexplained, and even the required session parameter lacks format guidance. The tool name and parameter titles cannot carry this burden.

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 uses a specific verb ('load'), identifies the resource ('session from disk'), and states what comes back ('data + summary'), which clearly separates it from sibling tools like list_sessions, delete_session, and start_capture. Even without naming a sibling, the action and output are precise enough to disambiguate.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as list_sessions, slice_log, or measurement_stats. There is no mention of prerequisites like having a session id from list_sessions or any exclusions/alternatives, so an agent must infer use from the name and one-line description.

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