Get session transcript

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: secrets are redacted by default and only exposed when raw is set; results are paginated with most recent messages first; and it repeats 'Read-only' for emphasis. The raw parameter's trust caveat is also surfaced. These are meaningful disclosures that help the agent predict side effects and data handling.

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 three short sentences with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the critical redaction detail and then the input-source note. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is ideal for quick scanning.

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?

The tool has six parameters, pagination, and role filtering, but no output schema. The description covers the essentials—purpose, default ordering, redaction behavior, and input provenance. It does not explicitly describe the response structure (e.g., list of messages with roles/content), but for a transcript fetch this is inferable. A minor gap regarding error conditions or rate limits exists, but overall it is sufficiently 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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (e.g., raw, limit, cursor, session_id). The description adds only a slight reminder to source agent and id from list/search, but that is largely redundant with the schema's session_id description. No new parameter meaning is introduced, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb (fetch) and resource (a session's transcript), and immediately adds pagination and default ordering. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on transcript content, not session metadata or searching. The phrase 'Use the agent and id fields from a list_sessions/search_sessions result' also implies this tool is downstream of those, further clarifying its role.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to obtain agent and session_id from list_sessions/search_sessions, which is a clear prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over get_session or search_sessions, nor does it give an exclusion condition. The guidance is implied by the resource type, but not as explicit as the best examples.

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