yaaif_dev_session_ensure

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently reveals that it persists IDs to a JSON file and auto-picks a default agent, which are useful side effects. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like overwriting an existing session, creating multiple sessions, or requiring specific permissions.

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 with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and then provides key details about default behavior and persistence. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is tight.

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 is a simple session ensure operation with 3 optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers the main purpose and two key side effects, but it leaves out specifics like whether session_id is required for reuse and what happens if force_new is true. Given the low complexity, it is mostly complete but not fully.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the agent_id parameter (auto-picks default if omitted) and implies session_id/force_new semantics through 'create or reuse'. While it doesn't fully detail each parameter, it gives enough context for an agent to infer their roles, which is commendable given the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Create or reuse') and resource ('Cursor authoring chat session'), and it clarifies the tool's scope by referencing 'files_* / session_state_* local tools'. This distinguishes it from general session tools like yaaif_ensure_session, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 that this tool is for sessions used by local file tools, and that omitting agent_id will auto-pick a default. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternative tools like yaaif_ensure_session, so guidance is present but not fully explicit.

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