pet_session_ensure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is idempotent and reports which action occurred via a 'started' field, which is helpful. However, it omits other behavioral details such as error conditions, required permissions, or the exact effect when booting (e.g., headless/warp specifics).

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. The first sentence immediately conveys the core action, and the second adds idempotency and output hint. Every word serves a purpose with no 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 tool's simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description provides the essential purpose and behavioral note (idempotency). However, it lacks parameter semantics and does not fully explain the return value beyond 'started'. For a tool with many siblings, more contextual differentiation would be beneficial.

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 0%, and the description does not mention or explain the two parameters (name, model). It refers to 'headless, warp' modes, which are not clearly linked to any parameter. The description adds no value beyond what the schema provides, failing to compensate for the lack of 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 states the verb ('attach' or 'boot'), the resource ('PET session'), and the specific scenario (running or non-existent). It also hints at idempotency and differentiates from siblings like pet_session_start by offering a combined attach-or-boot action.

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 implicitly defines when to use the tool: when you need a session running, either by attaching to an existing one or booting a new one. It does not explicitly list exclusions or contrast with alternatives like pet_session_start, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer usage.

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