analyze_session_form

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: sessions are defined by inactivity gaps (default 90 min), it analyzes up to 10 most recent sessions, and it scans a configurable number of matches. It does not mention any destructive or read-only implications, but given the likely read-only nature, this is adequate.

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 two sentences, each adding value: the first defines the core functionality, the second specifies the output limit. No wasted words. Front-loaded with the main action.

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 the tool's complexity (4 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main behavior and limits. It lists what the analysis includes (wins, losses, etc.) but does not detail the return format. For a tool with these characteristics, it is reasonably 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?

The input schema covers all parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by stating defaults (sessionGapMinutes=90, matchCount=60 max 100) and output limits (up to 10 sessions). This helps agents understand parameter behavior beyond the schema descriptions.

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 clearly specifies the tool's function: grouping a player's recent matches into sessions based on a configurable time gap and analyzing each session's performance (wins, losses, ELO change, best run time). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_player_matches (which lists individual matches) and analyze_player_form (which likely does a different analysis).

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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It implies usage for session-level performance analysis, but lacks explicit when/not-to-use guidance. The context of siblings (e.g., analyze_player_form) suggests differentiation, but it is not articulated.

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