phantomswap_get_session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Get' clearly signals a read operation, and 'full details and all key-value mappings' hints at the response scope. However, it does not mention behavior for nonexistent sessions, authentication requirements, or the fact that no state is modified. This is adequate for a simple getter but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It states the verb, the resource, and the scope of returned data efficiently.

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 low-complexity getter with one self-descriptive parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core operation. The output schema handles return-value details, so not explaining them is acceptable. Minor gaps remain around not-found behavior and explicit relationship to sibling tools, keeping it from a 5.

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 should compensate for the parameter's meaning. It only says 'a specific swap session,' which largely restates what session_name_or_id already conveys. It does not explain accepted formats, whether both name and ID resolve to the same session, or what happens on ambiguous or missing values.

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 uses a clear verb ('Get') and identifies the exact resource ('a specific swap session'). It also states the tool returns 'full details and all key-value mappings,' which distinguishes it from list_sessions and makes the operational scope obvious.

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 context is only implied: the agent can infer this tool is for retrieving a single session while list_sessions is for enumerating them. The description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool, when not to use it, or how it relates to create_session or the masking/unmasking siblings.

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