practice_session

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only describes the output (plan and scored report) but does not state whether the session records results, requires an existing plan, mutates state, or has side effects. This lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Run one complete practice session') and then efficiently summarizes the return value. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 adequately explains the output format (plan plus scored report with difficulty and next-review suggestions), which is important given no output schema. However, it omits parameter semantics for 'limit', behavioral side effects, and any prerequisites, leaving the tool not fully specified for an agent to use correctly without further inference.

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. It gives context for 'answers' (the responses to be scored) but leaves 'limit' completely unexplained, and it does not clarify the structure of answer items (id/attempt) beyond what the schema already shows. The description adds only minimal value over the raw schema.

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 'Run one complete practice session' and explains that it returns both the coming session plan and the scored report. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like practice_plan and practice_report, which handle these components separately.

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 implies the tool is used when you want a full practice session combining plan and report, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over practice_plan or practice_report for individual needs. There are no exclusions or alternative scenarios mentioned.

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