session_clone

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

With only a title annotation, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly guarantees 'The source session stays untouched,' lists the state that is cloned, and gives the return shape. This gives an agent meaningful expectations without contradicting annotations.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler: the operation, the carried state, the source-safety guarantee, the use cases, and the return object are all front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers purpose, exact behavioral effect, when to use it, and the return fields. An agent can select and invoke it correctly without needing further context.

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 100%, and the single parameter is already well documented as 'Session ID to derive from (stays alive and untouched).' The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond contextualizing that the new session is derived from this one, so the schema carries the weight.

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 uses a specific verb ('Derive') with a clear resource ('a new browser session') and names exactly what is carried over, including cookies and storage. It is distinct from sibling tools like session_create or session_export, so an agent can tell when session_clone is the right call.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: to snapshot a logged-in state before risky actions or run the same login in parallel tabs. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of the full 5, but the use context is clear.

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