live_session_get

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that this is a read operation returning the full session, all moves, and all responses. It does not cover potential performance costs or explicit side-effect disclaimers, but the read-only nature is implied and the return scope is clear.

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 extremely concise: one main clause stating the read scope and a short usage directive. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 single-parameter getter, the description covers purpose, return contents, and usage timing. It could add more about output structure or performance implications, but the tool is simple enough that the description is largely complete.

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 required string parameter (session_id) with no description, and the description does not mention session_id at all or add any format/constraint context. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but 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 clearly states a specific verb '读' (read) with an explicit resource 'LiveSession 全貌' and enumerates the scope: session + all moves + all responses. This differentiates it from sibling tools like live_session_start, live_session_complete, and live_snapshot_get_latest.

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?

'决定下一步前必读' explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: before deciding the next step in a LiveSession. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is clear.

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