session_get_capabilities

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 agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds 'Read-only' (redundant) and describes the return structure: connection info plus per-capability status (direct/partial/unavailable/unvalidated). It does not disclose latency, cost, or whether the bridge session must be in a particular state to call it. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return shape, then usage guidance. The phrase 'Read-only' is redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation, but it is brief. No wasted clauses or digressions.

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 the description need not explain return values in detail, and it correctly summarizes the return (connection info plus per-capability status) without duplicating the schema. Complete enough for a zero-parameter diagnostic tool. The only missing element is any prerequisite about the bridge session state, which is minor.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not invent parameter semantics and correctly focuses on output shape instead. No penalty applies.

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: 'Report which FL Studio integration paths work in this bridge session.' This is precise and distinguishes it from the many action-oriented siblings (project_apply_edits, mixer_set_track, etc.) that perform operations rather than diagnose capabilities.

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?

Explicit when-to-use: 'Call it when a tool is refused or before planning work that depends on a capability.' Also names an alternative and its scope: 'use project_get_summary for the open project's contents.' This gives the agent both a trigger condition and a routing rule.

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