get_session

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

With no annotations, the description fully informs about storage location ('~/.codearchitect/sessions/') and behavior when no parameters are provided (lists all sessions). It does not cover authentication or side effects, but as a read-only tool, this is acceptable.

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 well-structured with clear headings and sections. While somewhat long, all content is relevant. Minor redundancy (e.g., repeating 'main folder') but overall efficient.

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?

The description lacks details on what the tool returns (e.g., session content format). There is no output schema, so the description should explain the response structure. The 'format' parameter suggests different outputs, but no description of them is provided.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining each parameter's purpose in the 'USAGE' section, e.g., 'filename: Get specific session by topic folder name'. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 clearly states it retrieves previous conversations, using verbs like 'retrieve' and 'list'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'search_session', which could also retrieve conversations but likely via content search.

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 includes a 'WHEN TO USE' section with specific user phrases and scenarios. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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