cutbolt_session_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: that the head is a moving target while revisions are immutable, and that the call returns the entire project rather than a summary. It stays silent on the save_as side effect and on result size, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the primary capability front-loaded and the operational advice trailing. Every sentence carries information the structured fields do not.

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 read-only tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs: it says the result is the full project. It omits how large that result may be and does not mention that save_as redirects output to a file, which is a minor completeness gap.

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 the schema already documents project_id, revision, store_root and save_as. The description reinforces the head/immutable-revision distinction for the revision parameter but adds no syntax, defaults, or interaction rules (e.g. what happens when revision is null).

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 (read) and resource (the saved head or a chosen immutable revision) and adds the return scope ("Returns the full project"). It distinguishes head-vs-revision reads from the write-oriented siblings, though it never names an alternative tool like cutbolt_session_history or cutbolt_session_receipt.

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?

Gives two concrete conditions: read the head before editing, and use a receipt revision for rendering. That is usable routing guidance without naming the sibling tools explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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