get_llm_session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does add useful content by describing the returned data (aggregate cost/tokens/turns and the per-turn list) in the absence of an output schema. However, it says nothing about permissions, error behavior, or whether the per-turn list is paginated or bounded.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler that immediately names the resource and summarizes its contents. Every clause 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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description usefully summarizes what the response contains, which is exactly the burden it must carry here. It is only slightly short on the shape/limits of the per-turn list and on the session_id prerequisite.

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 single parameter session_id is never mentioned in the description. The schema only provides the name and type, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap; the parameter's meaning is inferred solely from the tool name.

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 a specific verb ("Get") and resource ("one LLM session's detail") and enumerates the payload (aggregate cost/tokens/turns plus the full per-turn list). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling list_llm_sessions by the singular "one ... session" framing, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: "one LLM session" signals this is the single-record retrieval counterpart to list_llm_sessions, but the description never states when to prefer it over the list tool or what prerequisite (a known session_id) is needed. No exclusions or alternatives are given.

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