Get XDaLa session start result

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

With no annotations, the description properly discloses read-only nature and that no signing/submitting/executing occurs. It adds a detail about preferring certain fields. Could be more complete about return format but adequate for a simple lookup.

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?

Two sentences, no waste. Front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage and a specific preference note. 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?

Given the simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and a behavioral note. Missing parameter explanation but overall sufficient for context.

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 coverage is 0% and description does not explain the 'handle' parameter. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is insufficient for a single required parameter.

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 returns terminal session start result, lean result summary, and audit events, specifying the verb 'return' and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_xdala_session_start_handoff by emphasizing read-only lookup.

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 indicates read-only usage and that the MCP does not sign/submit/execute, guiding when to use. It also provides a preference note for owner identification. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use.

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