session_ack

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the operation clears needs_attention, but it omits permissions, reversibility, error behavior for unfinished runs, and the meaning of cross_bot.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. The parenthetical efficiently explains the key state change.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and partial schema coverage, the description is too sparse. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but key invocation context around run selection and cross_bot behavior is missing.

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 only 33%, and the description adds little parameter meaning. 'Finished runs' loosely implies run_ids, but cross_bot is not mentioned at all, and run_ids constraints are left entirely to the 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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Mark finished runs as seen,' and clarifies the effect as clearing needs_attention. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as session_status or session_tail.

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?

'Finished runs' implies the condition for use, but the description does not state when to use this versus alternatives like session_status, nor does it mention exclusions such as active runs. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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