Validate XGR Session Start Handoff

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states validation, but doesn't disclose side effects, return behavior, or whether it's read-only. The validation nature is implied, but details are missing.

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, front-loaded action, no wasted words. Efficient and to the point.

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?

Adequate for a validation tool with one parameter, but lacks details on return format or error handling. No output schema, so description could be more complete, but it covers the essential request structure.

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% (only 'request' as an object with additional properties). The description compensates by specifying required fields: type, sessions.stepId, sessions.payload, sessions.maxTotalGas, adding significant meaning beyond the 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 it validates a specific request format (xgr-session-start@1 with type=xdala_session_start and fields). It distinguishes itself as the 'Workbench handoff validator' and advises against using entryStepId, which hints at sibling differentiation, though it doesn't explicitly mention validate_xgr_session_start.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only says 'do not use entryStepId', which is a parameter hint, not a usage context or alternative suggestion.

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