Session Get

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's main added value is the ownership scoping implied by 'owned' — a meaningful access constraint. It does not disclose error behavior, what happens on a non-owned or missing session_id, or any rate limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and returned scope come first. It is perhaps terse to the point of omitting useful routing detail, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 single-parameter read tool with readOnlyHint and an output schema covering return values, the description supplies the essential scope. The remaining gap is routing versus sessions_list and session_trace_export, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema does not explain session_id at all; the description only implies it identifies a single owned session. It adds marginal meaning (ownership requirement) but no format, source, or validity guidance to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('one owned Tinker session'), plus the returned payload type ('remote run identifiers'). 'One' distinguishes it from sessions_list implicitly, but the sibling is never named, so differentiation relies on the agent's inference.

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 singular 'one ... session' implies a by-ID lookup rather than enumeration, which is enough to infer use over sessions_list. However, no explicit when-to-use condition, prerequisites, or alternatives are stated, and no guidance on when to prefer session_trace_export for deeper inspection.

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