session_switch

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it does not. It only states that it is an alias, without explaining side effects, state changes, permissions, or return behavior. The description adds no behavioral information beyond the very existence of the alias.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than concise effective copy. The single sentence 'Alias for session_use' avoids all relevant information about what the tool does or when to use it. It is not a case where every word earns its place; it is a case where vital content is missing.

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?

Considering that the tool has no output schema and three parameters are fully covered, the remaining gap is the purpose and behavior. The description is entirely dependent on the agent knowing 'session_use', so the agent cannot decide to call this tool almost nothing is conveyed about its role. This is incomplete for a tool in a larger session-management family.

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 100%, so each parameter already has its own meaning in the schema. The description does not add or clarify parameter semantics, but it also does not need to because the schema fully documents them. Baseline 3 applies as the description adds no value over schema.

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 'Alias for session_use' does not state what the tool does itself; it merely points to another tool. It lacks a specific verb and resource of its own, relying on the agent to already know session_use. This is not a tautology, but it is a vague cross-reference rather than a self-contained purpose statement.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'session_use' or other session-related tools. The description provides no context about conditions that favor this alias over the primary tool. This leaves the agent to guess which one to invoke.

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