inkbolt_session_read

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 without the description. The description adds useful content scope (document, resource roots, revision, history depths) but says nothing about authorization needs, size/cost of the full response, or side effects of reading a snapshot.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action and scope stated first and the returned content trailing. No filler or redundancy, though the trailing enumeration is dense enough that a 5 is not warranted.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile, so the remaining burden is routing and parameter guidance. The description leaves the agent without any signal for choosing this tool over session_history, session_diff or session_receipt, which is a real gap in a 21-tool family.

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 60%: session_root, response_mode and response_format already carry detailed schema descriptions, and the description's mention of 'a named snapshot' only lightly maps to the undocumented snapshot parameter. The required session_id has no description in either the schema or the description, so the prose does not compensate where coverage is missing.

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 gives a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('the current session or a named snapshot') and enumerates what the payload includes (document, resource roots, current revision, history depths). It is clear, but it never distinguishes this tool from siblings like inkbolt_session_history, inkbolt_session_diff or inkbolt_session_receipt, which also surface session state.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternative tool is named, despite ~20 session/document siblings. The only implicit signal is the current-session vs named-snapshot branch, which does not tell an agent when this read is preferable to session_history or session_diff.

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