smoke_check_session

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the overall operation sequence and that the document is reopened in read-only mode, which is useful. However, it does not explain side effects, whether anything is persisted, what output_dir is used for, or what the tool returns.

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 entire description is one compact, front-loaded sentence that lists the sequence of lifecycle actions and the purpose. Every word contributes, with no filler or repetition.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, this description is far from complete. It does not explain expected results, error scenarios, what 'save-as-close' concretely writes, or how visible and output_dir influence behavior, which an agent would need to invoke it confidently.

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 adds no meaning for any of the three parameters. The names path, visible, and output_dir are self-explanatory at a surface level, but the description does not clarify how they affect the smoke-check sequence or what output_dir should contain.

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 names a concrete sequence of actions—open, save-as-close, reopen-readonly, close—on a KOMPAS document, making the tool's purpose clear. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with the sibling batch_smoke_check_session, so it loses the top point for sibling differentiation.

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 phrase 'to verify lifecycle handling' implies a use case, but the description gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as batch_smoke_check_session or the individual session tools like open_document and close_document. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing.

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