knowledge_session

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the actions but does not mention whether operations are read-only, side effects, required permissions, error behavior (e.g., invalid session_id), or any rate limits. For a tool with three read-like actions, this is a notable gap; the agent is left to infer safety and failure modes.

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 short sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the core concept 'Session operations' and immediately explains the three actions. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool, making it highly efficient.

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?

The description provides enough to invoke the tool correctly for the three actions, but it omits the response format entirely. Since there is no output schema, the agent is unaware of what each action returns (e.g., list returns an array, get returns messages). For a multi-action tool, this is a moderate gap, though the actions are simple enough that an agent might infer typical behavior.

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?

All seven parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the schema carries the heavy lifting. The description adds context for how the action parameter drives behavior (list vs get vs summary) and clarifies the purpose of some parameters indirectly (e.g., tail for get, limit for list), but it does not add new semantic detail beyond the schema. This aligns with the coverage baseline of 3.

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: 'Session operations: list sessions, get a full conversation, or get a summary.' It identifies three distinct actions (list, get, summary) and explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on session operations, which none of the sibling names (knowledge, knowledge_search, knowledge_admin, knowledge_graph, knowledge_analyze) cover.

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 provides per-action guidance: 'Use action list to browse sessions, get to retrieve messages, summary for a quick overview.' This clarifies when to use each action, but it does not mention when to favor this tool over siblings such as knowledge_search or knowledge_analyze. There is no explicit exclusion or alternative routing at the tool level, though the action-level guidance is useful.

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