session_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature, the format of the state file, and the error behavior for unknown sessions. It does not mention other error conditions or auth requirements, but for a simple read tool this is adequate.

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?

Two sentences, no redundant information. The description front-loads the purpose, then adds error behavior and read-only status. Every word earns its place.

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?

Within the context of the session tool family, this is a simple read operation. The description lists the return content implicitly and notes the not_found error. The lack of an output schema means the success response shape is not explicitly stated, but the content listing covers it adequately.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that app_id and session_id identify the session pair and that they are keys used by session_enter. However, it does not explain the format or source of the IDs, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

States the specific action (read), the resource (thin per-session state file for an app/session pair), and lists the contents (entry mode, bound dispatch, project/workspace). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like session_enter by indicating it reads what session_enter writes and is read-only.

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 context by referencing session_enter as the writer and explicitly stating 'Read-only.' However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer this is the read counterpart to session_enter.

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