read_session

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It lists actions but does not state if reads are idempotent, whether session data is persisted, what happens on missing session, or any error conditions. Lacks details on permissions or side effects.

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 moderately sized, with a clear bullet list of actions and a short instructional paragraph. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. No redundant sentences, though it could be slightly more concise.

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 has 16 parameters and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain many parameters and does not describe the return structure despite an output schema existing. The facade nature demands more thorough documentation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains a few parameters (artifact_file, offset, max_chars, artifact_tool, artifact_kind, include_local_paths) but leaves many undocumented (pmid, artifact_id, artifact_uri, session_id, search_index, query_filter, include_history, history_limit, event_limit). The description adds some meaning but is insufficient.

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 it reads session data via a facade and lists specific actions (pmids, article, summary, list_artifacts, artifact). This clearly defines the tool's scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_session_summary or get_cached_article, which might overlap.

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 provides some usage guidance, e.g., using artifact_file with offset/max_chars for paging, and filtering list_artifacts by artifact_tool/artifact_kind. However, it does not specify when to prefer this facade over individual sibling tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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