bi_get_session

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about what data is fetched, such as current user capabilities and available profiles, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits like authentication requirements or the distinction between the shaped and raw responses.

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, dense sentence that lists the returned data categories without any filler. It is front-loaded and every phrase adds value.

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 read-only tool with zero required parameters and no output schema, the description gives a reasonable outline of the return contents, which helps an agent understand what to expect. It does not specify the exact response structure, but that is a minor gap for this simple, optional-parameter 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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, and the single parameter 'raw' is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource—BI session information—by enumerating its contents: version/license, timezone, user capabilities, and profile/schedule/stream names. It differentiates this tool from siblings through that content list. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'returns', relying on the tool name and title for that.

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 implies this tool is for fetching session-level metadata, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus siblings such as bi_get_sysconfig or bi_get_status. No alternatives, exclusions, or preconditions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the listed contents.

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