session

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that reset clears the map and tab binding, which is useful, but it does not explain what map returns, what mermaid renders, what task operations do, or whether these actions mutate persistent session state. The truncated text also cuts off important behavior.

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 pipe-separated format is compact and front-loads the most important action, which is good. However, the description is visibly truncated mid-word after 'pages vi…', which is a structural defect rather than intentional conciseness.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description must provide sufficient context on its own. Given seven parameters, four enums, and multiple action modes, the provided text only covers reset and partially covers map, leaving mermaid, task, direction, outputs, and cross-sibling behavior unexplained.

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 71%, and the schema already describes op, goal, step, steps, and detail. The description adds meaning to the otherwise undocumented action enum by explaining reset and beginning to explain map. Direction and task-related semantics remain undocumented, but the description does add value beyond the schema.

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 establishes that this is an exploration-session control with actions like reset and map, and it gives a concrete meaning for reset: clear map + tab binding. However, it is truncated at 'pages vi…', never states the full scope of the tool, and does not clearly define what the session tool itself is responsible for relative to siblings like explore_page or status.

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 one explicit usage instruction: use reset when starting a new task. That is actionable. But it provides no guidance for map, mermaid, or task, and no comparison with sibling tools, so an agent cannot confidently decide when to use session instead of alternatives.

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