Get Session Summary

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals no side effects. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that by disclosing that all data is anonymized and that no user IDs are returned, which is important for privacy-aware tool selection. It does not contradict the annotation.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core data delivered, the second adds the anonymization caveat and practical use case. Every sentence earns 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 low-complexity read-only tool with 2 optional parameters, a complete schema, and no output schema, the description provides enough information to call it correctly. It states what data is returned, confirms privacy/anonymization, and gives a realistic usage scenario.

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 coverage is 100%, with both 'limit' and 'sessionType' already described clearly in the input schema. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning, though 'session counts by type' loosely aligns with the sessionType filter. The schema carries the full burden, so baseline 3 applies.

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 verb ('Returns') and resource ('aggregated session data'), and itemizes what that includes: session counts by type, average duration, and content engagement. This clearly distinguishes it from the many get_* siblings, which target grammar maps, content, error patterns, etc.

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 gives clear usage context: it is useful for understanding how learners use the app. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select this tool for high-level session analytics.

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