session

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it never states that 'close' is a mutating (likely irreversible) operation or that delete_history permanently drops history. It also omits permission requirements and pagination behavior for history paging, which matters for a tool with a mix of read and write modes.

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 with the operations front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification given the destructive mode it hides.

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?

For a 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least flag the destructive nature of close/delete_history and clarify the list-vs-history distinction. As written, an agent could invoke a destructive close without warning.

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 83%, so the structured fields already document most parameters (cursor and limit apply to history, session_handle to history/close, workspace_path fallback behavior). The description adds nothing beyond restating the action verbs, so the baseline 3 applies rather than a higher score.

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 names three concrete operations (list, page history, close) on the resource 'sessions', which maps cleanly onto the action enum. It is clear what the tool does, though it offers no differentiation from the sibling tools (doctor, consult, review, cancel, issue).

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?

It lists the modes but never says when to choose list over history or close, nor what the prerequisites are for closing a session. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer selection from the bare action enum.

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