get_session

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only operation via the word 'view/查看', which is helpful, and lists the returned data points. However, it doesn't disclose what happens if no active session exists or other edge-case behavior, leaving some gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and appends the usage timing. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the purpose, the scoped data returned, and the recommended call timing. It could note behavior when no session exists, but nothing critical is missing for a tool this simple.

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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema is an empty object, so there is nothing to document. Per baseline, a 0-parameter tool deserves a 4.

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 states a specific verb (view/查看) and resource (current editing session) and lists the exact contents it exposes: template ID, version ID, component count, formula count. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_template_detail and list_components.

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 gives explicit timing guidance: use before design or save to confirm state (设计前/保存前用于确认状态). It provides clear context for when to call, though it doesn't explicitly name exclusions or alternative tools.

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