get_session_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns a cursor usable with read_output, but omits critical behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, permissions required, error handling for invalid session IDs, or response format. The listed fields provide some transparency but insufficient depth.

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 concise, consisting of only two sentences that front-load the primary purpose and then provide a usage hint. It avoids unnecessary words, though the structure could be improved by separating output fields and usage guidance more explicitly.

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 low complexity (single parameter, no output schema), the description covers the main returned fields and a key usage pattern. However, it lacks explanation of the return value structure, potential error states, and how classified state is determined, leaving some ambiguity for an AI agent.

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 schema has one parameter (session_id) with 0% description coverage, yet the description adds no additional meaning beyond the name itself. It does not specify format, origin, or constraints of session_id, relying on implicit understanding. The description focuses on output rather than clarifying the input parameter.

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 it retrieves detailed session state and lists specific fields (type, target, is_alive, cursor, classified state, etc.), making the purpose unambiguous. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like list_sessions (which returns summary) and read_output (which reads output) by focusing on state retrieval, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 provides usage guidance by mentioning that the returned cursor can be used with read_output for incremental reads, indicating a related workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_sessions or when not to use it, leaving gaps in decision-making.

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