Fflgetsession

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only implies read-only behavior without stating it. It says nothing about behavior on an unknown or ended sessionId, nor about any auth or scoping requirements.

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?

A single short sentence that leads with the action, with no wasted words. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but structurally clean.

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 output schema covers return values and the tool takes only one parameter, so less prose is needed than for a complex tool. Still, the absence of annotations means the description should have stated read-only semantics and the origin of the sessionId, which it omits.

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 single required parameter, sessionId, has 0% schema description coverage and the description adds no meaning — it does not say where a session ID comes from (e.g., a share call or fflListSessions) or what format it takes. With one undocumented parameter, the description needed to compensate and does not.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ("Get details for a running session") that clearly marks this as a read of a session object. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as fflGetSessionEvents, fflListSessions, or fflStopSession, so an agent must infer the boundary from names alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus fflListSessions (to find a session) or fflGetSessionEvents (to see activity). The only implied precondition is that the session be "running," with no statement about completed or invalid sessions.

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