Get XDaLa session receipt logs

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

The description discloses the tool returns decoded engine receipt data and lists included fields. While it doesn't explicitly state read-only, the return semantics imply no side effects. Without annotations, it adequately informs behavior, though a read-only hint would be beneficial.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose, with no unnecessary words. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function and usage boundaries.

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's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides adequate high-level context about what the tool returns and when to use it. However, it lacks detail on parameters and output structure, leaving significant gaps for an agent to fully understand invocation and interpretation.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the 8 parameters. It only describes the return data, leaving parameter semantics entirely undocumented. No value is added beyond the raw 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'inspect what an XDaLa session actually did' and lists specific return fields. It distinguishes from sibling get_session_transactions by advising against using it for a simple transaction timeline, making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: when to use ('inspect what a session did') and when not to ('do not use for a simple transaction timeline') with a named alternative tool (get_session_transactions). This gives clear direction for selection.

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