session_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the persistent nature of the session and that snapshot mode is always available, which are key behavioral traits. It could add details about resource usage or cleanup requirements, but the disclosed info is sufficient for safe invocation.

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 concise at two sentences, but the second sentence could be streamlined (e.g., 'Supports interactive shells, SSH, REPLs, and database CLIs.' is a bit broad). Overall, every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy.

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 complexity of the tool (7 parameters, no output schema) and the lack of annotations, the description provides a solid understanding of what the tool does and the returned session_id. It could be more complete by noting that the session persists until explicitly closed or the idle_timeout expires, and that commands are executed in a new terminal environment. However, the given info is mostly adequate.

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%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by explaining that 'enable_snapshot' is deprecated (though kept for backward compatibility) and clarifies that snapshot is always enabled. This extra context goes beyond what the schema provides, justifying a score above the baseline of 3.

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 states the tool spawns a persistent PTY terminal session and returns a session_id, which is the core purpose. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting that the returned session_id is used by all other session_* tools, making the relationship to siblings clear.

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 provides clear context for usage with examples (interactive shells, SSH, REPLs, database CLIs) and notes the session_id is used by sibling tools, implying this is the first tool to call. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., for non-interactive scripts) or mention alternatives beyond the sibling set.

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