session_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real behavioral content: it only surfaces *verified* session data, degrades to project status when unbound, and explicitly refuses to infer other sessions — a useful guardrail against hallucinated cross-session context. It omits whether the call is strictly read-only, any permission/auth requirements, and what the returned shape looks like, so the disclosure is partial rather than complete.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core action and follows with the fallback condition. No filler, though the terseness leaves the parameter unaddressed.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main behavioral edge case (unbound fallback) but not the meaning or sourcing of `context_handle` or what a successful bound response contains. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would hit on first invocation.

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 0% — the single parameter `context_handle` has only a pattern and minLength, with no description of what a handle is or where it comes from. The tool description never mentions the parameter at all, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap. An agent must guess whether the handle is required for the bound case and what happens if it is omitted.

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 uses the verb "读取" (read) and names the resources "已验证的宿主会话" and "任务版本", so the general intent is visible. However, "宿主会话" and "任务版本" are abstract jargon that an agent cannot map to a concrete payload, and nothing distinguishes this tool from siblings such as work_memory_read or knowledge_read. Purpose is inferable but not sharp.

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 clause "未绑定时只返回项目状态" implies when the tool is meaningful (a bound session) and what happens otherwise, giving implied usage context. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over the sibling read/search tools, and no prerequisites are spelled out. Usage must be inferred.

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