configure_session_handling

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but does not mention side effects, mutability, permissions required, or reversibility. As a configuration tool, it likely modifies an existing scan config, but the description does not reveal whether changes are immediately applied, if they can be undone, or what the response format is. This leaves the agent uncertain about the operation's safety and impact.

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, focused sentence that leads with the verb 'Configure' and states the main scope. There is no fluff or repetition. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core function, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. While the parameter schema is complete, the description does not provide contextual completeness for a configuration mutation: it lacks usage scenarios, behavioral implications, or any operational expectations. An agent using this tool would need more context to understand how it fits into the broader scan configuration workflow, especially given the many sibling configuration tools.

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%, meaning every parameter (lock_cookies, session_loss_regex, etc.) has a descriptive comment. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter context, but per the rubric, the baseline is 3 when the schema covers all parameters. The parameter descriptions are reasonably self-explanatory, so no significant gap exists.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Configure session management including cookie handling and automatic re-login on session loss.' It uses a specific verb ('Configure') and names the resource (session management) plus key capabilities. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling configuration tools like configure_form_auth or configure_oauth, the focus on session handling is distinctive enough to avoid serious ambiguity.

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 provided regarding when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or compare itself to sibling tools. A user must infer from the name and context that this tool is for session-related configuration, but no explicit usage direction is given.

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