parseltongue_create_session

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It doesn't state what happens on duplicate session_id (error? overwrite?), whether sessions expire, or what the status response contains. The description says 'JSON with session creation status' which is minimal.

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 efficiently short with a clear purpose statement, an Args section documenting the single parameter, and a Returns note. Every sentence earns its place with minimal waste.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter creation tool with an output schema, so the completeness bar is lower. However, for a session lifecycle tool within a family of 8 siblings, the description doesn't clarify important context like duplicate handling, session limits, or how this fits into the workflow (create → register_document → load_dsl → check_consistency).

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The description does add a small amount of value by providing an example format ('sec-filing-review') for the session_id, clarifying it's a unique identifier. However, with only 1 parameter, the schema already conveys it's a required string identifier, so the added value is marginal.

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 states a clear verb+resource: 'Create a new Parseltongue verification session.' It specifies what it does (creates a session) and gives an example session_id format. It distinguishes itself from siblings like parseltongue_list_sessions or parseltongue_clear_session by being the session-creation tool, though it doesn't explicitly call out those distinctions.

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 implies usage (called before registering documents/loading DSL in a session workflow) but doesn't explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives like list_sessions or clear_session. No exclusions or prerequisites are given, such as whether a session already exists or needs to be cleared first.

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