Get a remote session

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is fully covered by structured data. The description adds one genuinely new piece of context, the required permission ("Perm: remote_connect"), which helps an agent anticipate authorization failures, but says nothing about session states, missing IDs, or errors.

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, the first of which ("Get a remote session") simply restates the name/title, and the second largely re-states it again before adding the ID and permission notes. Short, but partially redundant rather than front-loaded with distinct information.

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 an output schema present and full parameter coverage, the description only needs to carry behavioral context; it covers the permission requirement but omits whether expired/terminated sessions are returned and how an unknown session_id behaves. Adequate but with clear gaps for a tool whose output schema exists.

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 100%, with session_id, endpoint_id, org_id and response_format all documented in the schema itself. The description only echoes that the session is identified by ID, adding no format, precedence, or interaction details (e.g. whether endpoint_id must match the session's endpoint).

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 ("Gets details for an existing remote session") and scopes it to an ID lookup, which is clear. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as action1_update_remote_session or action1_create_endpoint_remote_session beyond the word "existing", so the differentiation is only implied.

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 phrase "for an existing remote session specified by ID" implies the precondition that a session must already exist, and 'specified by ID' hints at the lookup pattern. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus update_remote_session or the create variant, and no exclusion guidance.

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