yaaif_ensure_session

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses key actions: validation, refresh or login, and tenant auto-selection based on last/single/default, plus return of ready state. It does not mention failure modes or interaction details, but the core behavior is transparent enough for an agent to predict side effects.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the 'one-shot' nature and lists the main steps. It contains no redundant filler, 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?

Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It omits details on parameter effects, return value structure of 'ready state', and potential errors or edge cases in tenant selection. The complexity of session setup warrants more context than a single sentence.

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 the description does not elaborate on tenant, profile_id, or login_if_needed. Despite mentioning auto-selection of tenant, it fails to explain how the tenant parameter influences selection or what profile_id controls. Since the schema provides no descriptions, the tool description should compensate but does not, leaving parameter meanings ambiguous.

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?

Description clearly states the tool validates platform/OIDC, refreshes or logs in, auto-selects a tenant, and returns a ready state. It identifies the specific resource (session) and the verb (ensure), distinguishing it from granular siblings like yaaif_login and yaaif_set_tenant by framing it as a one-shot orchestration.

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 usage as a high-level convenience for establishing a session, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over yaaif_login, yaaif_set_tenant, or yaaif_whoami, nor does it mention conditions where direct tools would be more appropriate. Guidance is vague and relies on inference from the 'one-shot' phrasing.

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