yaaif_ops_session_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states READ-ONLY, which clarifies safety, and indicates it returns derived failure findings. However, it does not explain how findings are derived, what the returned structure looks like, or how paging/size caps affect results beyond what the schema already says.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the READ-ONLY safety signal, then a concise statement of outputs and the required input. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description should provide more context about the response shape, the meaning of 'derived failure findings', and how this tool relates to neighboring ops session tools. It is enough to guess the call, but not enough to fully anticipate behavior or results.

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 high (75%), and the schema already documents max_chars, max_items, and summary_only. The description adds little beyond repeating 'session_id', and notably the required session_id parameter has no schema description and no additional semantic clarification about format or source.

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 what the tool does: it returns LLM/flow session metrics detail and derived failure findings for a session_id. The READ-ONLY prefix and resource mention give a clear verb+resource pairing, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling session tools like yaaif_ops_session_messages, yaaif_ops_session_events, or yaaif_ops_session_insights.

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 guidance is provided on when to choose this tool over alternatives. The description does not mention conditions, exclusions, or sibling tools, so an agent must infer usage from the name and sibling set.

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