get_session

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the chat-scoped 'rules' (only rules this chat has not seen) and the state flag edit_ready. It stops short of describing size limits, pagination, or cost of a large session payload.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, but the rest is one sprawling run-on sentence that blends return-value documentation, file-location lore, and workflow commands. It is dense rather than wasteful, yet it would be more usable broken into a 'returns' sentence and a 'what to do next' sentence.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the only source for the return shape, and it does a thorough job listing takes, assets, folders, warnings, checks, and rules. A few fields (checks/edit states, rules semantics) are alluded to rather than explained, leaving minor gaps for a tool that returns a large aggregate object.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema (accepts 'Project/folder', absolute path, or id, and survives renames/moves), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about the session argument, which is the correct baseline when schema coverage is 100%.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get a session') and then enumerates the exact payload: id, title, full script, takes with file path/duration/keeper/name/start time, asset files, folders, warnings, checks, and rules. This is far more than a restatement of the name and lets an agent distinguish it from siblings such as list_sessions or get_edit_recipe.

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 clear operational context: fix files flagged in 'warnings', cut takes with cut_take and rough_cut by default, and follow the 'rules' for the next step. It names sibling tools as the follow-on actions, but never states when to call get_session itself versus list_sessions or get_script_version, so selection guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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