get_session

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

The annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful scope about what state is inspected and positions it as a first diagnostic step, but it does not describe output freshness, cost, or return shape beyond the three content categories. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, this is adequate but not rich.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and state categories, followed by the troubleshooting trigger. Every clause adds useful signal, and there is no wasted text.

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 zero-parameter, read-only diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context to know when and why to call it. It lists the main state categories but does not explain the returned structure in detail; that is a minor gap given the lack of an output schema.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it correctly focuses on what the no-argument call returns.

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 a specific resource and verb: viewing current session state, and it enumerates the three main contents (selected game, index statistics, runtime injection status). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar diagnostic siblings such as get_diagnostics or runtime_info, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to understand what it returns.

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?

It gives a concrete usage context: when troubleshooting 'why can't find a class / hook fails', look here first. This establishes a priority entry point for diagnosis. It does not name explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the intended situation is clear.

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