research_session

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It explains the purpose of each action (create/status/complete) and mentions outputs like session progress, coverage, and final reports. However, it does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or prerequisites beyond the schema, leaving gaps in what happens when each action is invoked.

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 concise and well-structured with a one-line overview and a bulleted action list. Every sentence and bullet earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 multi-action session management tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the three core actions but omits workflow sequencing (e.g., must create before status/complete), depth semantics, and session lifecycle behavior. It provides a basic understanding but is incomplete for a moderately complex tool.

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 schema covers 50% of parameters (topic and sessionId have descriptions), but the description does not add meaning for the 'depth' parameter at all and only implicitly uses 'sessionId' via the action descriptions. It fails to compensate for the missing schema coverage and adds minimal value beyond parameter names.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Create or manage a research session') and lists three actions, clearly distinguishing this session management tool from sibling search and fetch tools. It is specific about the resource and its purpose.

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 phrase 'for multi-step research workflows' provides clear context for when to use the tool, implying it is intended for complex research tasks rather than simple searches. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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