Link Sessions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that it links sessions, without revealing whether the operation is idempotent, requires permissions, overwrites existing links, or has side effects. The link_type values ('continues', 'related', 'supersedes') are listed but their semantics and impact are not explained.

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 extremely concise: a one-line purpose followed by a clear parameter list. Every word is functional, with no redundancy or fluff. The structure is front-loaded and easy to scan, earning its place.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks context on what linking means (persistent? affects retrieval?), error handling (e.g., invalid IDs), and how this tool complements siblings like get_related_sessions or session_link_doc. The minimal description leaves the agent with significant uncertainty.

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 must compensate. The 'Args:' section adds meaning beyond the schema: 'Source session ID', 'Target session ID', and 'Relationship type - continues, related, or supersedes'. This clarifies the parameters' roles. However, it does not explain constraints (e.g., circular links, duplicates) or provide examples.

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 states 'Link two related sessions,' clearly indicating the verb (Link) and resource (sessions). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_related_sessions (which retrieves links) and session_link_doc (which links sessions to documents). However, it does not specify what linking accomplishes functionally, such as whether it affects retrieval or is persistent.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_related_sessions or session_link_doc. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. The sibling list is provided externally, but the description itself lacks explicit usage direction.

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