session_get_parameters

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it correctly signals a read operation and adds valuable context that the parameters are 'live' and 'after defaults were applied.' However, it does not mention error behavior for invalid paths, authorization needs, or any other operational trait beyond the basic read semantics.

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 sentences with zero filler: the first front-loads the purpose, and the second immediately covers parameter semantics with examples. 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?

Given that an output schema exists, return values need not be explained, and the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and path argument. However, for a two-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the absence of any session_id explanation and any usage guidance leaves it minimally sufficient rather than complete.

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 thoroughly explains the optional 'path' parameter with JSON Pointer syntax, two concrete examples, and the empty-string behavior, but it says nothing about the required 'session_id' parameter, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('live ProjectParameters of a session'), and adds the important qualifier 'after defaults were applied' that distinguishes it from static project settings reads. It does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings like project_get_setting or explain_project_parameters, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 for inspecting the session's effective parameters but gives no explicit when-to-use instructions, no prerequisites, and no exclusions or alternatives. Sibling tools such as project_get_setting and explain_project_parameters could plausibly be chosen instead, yet nothing routes the agent between them.

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