get_session_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It claims 'complete session log' and 'full history' but the limit parameter (default 50) caps results, creating an internal contradiction. It also fails to disclose read-only nature, ordering, or pagination behavior, which is essential for a retrieval 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 uses clear headings and bullet points for readability. It is somewhat verbose with the 'USEFUL FOR' line largely repeating the 'WHEN TO USE' content, but the structure is effective and not overly long.

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 retrieval tool with no output schema, the description gives useful high-level context about the contents (events, activities, durations). However, it omits specifics like return format, ordering, and the effect of the limit parameter, making it only partially 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both 'agent_id' and 'limit' are already well-documented. The tool description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('your complete session log'), clearly stating it returns events and activities. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_context_history or get_agent_context by focusing on the session log specifically.

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 'WHEN TO USE' section provides clear, explicit scenarios for when to invoke this tool (reviewing history, understanding context transitions, tracking duration, debugging). However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.

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