inkbolt_session_receipt

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds real context beyond them: the returned document/receipt is the original committed historical result, distinct from current head fields — critical for interpreting output. It does not mention behavior when request_id is unknown or how the retry identity ties to session_id.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and keyed on request_id; the second sentence earns its place by disambiguating the historical result from current head. No filler or restated boilerplate.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. Given a recovery-oriented tool with 5 params, the description covers the essential scenario and output caveat; only the missing sibling routing and not-found behavior keep 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 coverage is 60% and the schema itself details session_root, response_mode and response_format. The description only echoes request_id ('by request_id') and adds nothing about the compact/full tradeoff or the format enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries most parameter meaning.

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 and resource: 'Recover the original committed document and receipt by request_id.' The qualifier 'Current head fields are separate from the historical result' usefully pins down that this returns a historical snapshot rather than the current state, but no sibling tool is named for contrast.

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?

'after a lost response' gives a concrete trigger condition, which is more than the usual implied usage. However, it never names an alternative (session_history, session_read, session_diff) or states when NOT to use this tool, so the agent must infer routing from the siblings themselves.

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