fm_validate_session

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('check if the session is valid') but doesn't add context such as what constitutes validity, authentication requirements, rate limits, or response behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage, though not contradictory.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the core action and has no wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (simple validation with no parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'valid' means, potential outcomes (e.g., boolean result, error codes), or integration with sibling tools. For a validation tool, more context is needed to guide an AI agent effectively.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). With no parameters, the description doesn't need to add semantic details beyond the schema. It appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without redundant parameter information, meeting the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 states the purpose ('セッションが有効かどうかを確認します' translates to 'Check if the session is valid') which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb ('check/confirm') and resource ('session validity'), but doesn't distinguish from siblings like fm_login or fm_logout beyond the basic action. No tautology or misleading elements are present.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies usage for session validation, but it doesn't specify contexts (e.g., before other operations), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like fm_login (for authentication) or fm_logout (for termination). This leaves gaps for an AI agent to infer correct usage.

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