session_challenges

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description thoroughly discloses behavior: the detection signals, the two possible wall locations via 'url' or 'body', the output structure, the account-name/handoff addition, and the explicit statement that the engine only detects and surfaces, never solves or bypasses. This is rich, accurate behavioral context.

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 long but information-dense: every component, from purpose to failure indicators to output shape to human handoff, earns its place. It is also front-loaded with the primary question the tool answers.

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?

With no output schema present, the description compensates fully by specifying the return shape and hit-specific fields. It also explains the follow-up human workflow and the tool's non-bypass boundary, making the definition complete enough for correct invocation and interpretation.

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?

The schema already documents the single session_id parameter with 100% coverage. The description only loosely ties it to 'this session' and does not add format, constraints, or lifecycle context. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clear, specific purpose: a 'one-call risk-control report' that tells whether a session hit an anti-bot wall. It names concrete failure indicators and the expected output shape, and it distinguishes itself from generic session tools by being detection-only.

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 gives clear context for when to use it: whenever you need to check whether a session was walled, and it explicitly notes that the tool does not auto-bypass. However, it does not name sibling alternatives or state when to prefer a different session inspection tool, leaving some routing to inference.

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