get_session_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions this is for confirming connection, which hints at a diagnostic/read-only behavior, but doesn't explicitly state whether this is a read operation, what permissions are needed, or what the output contains. The note about OSC adds some context but doesn't fully describe behavioral traits.

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 appropriately concise with three short sentences that each add value: stating the purpose, providing a note about OSC, and giving usage guidance. It's front-loaded with the main purpose. There's minimal waste, though the structure could be slightly more polished.

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 tool has 0 parameters, an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and usage but lacks details on what specific information is retrieved or behavioral aspects like error handling. For a simple diagnostic tool, this is adequate but has gaps.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly doesn't mention any parameters. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 the tool 'Get information about REAPER' which provides a basic purpose (verb+resource), but it's vague about what specific information is retrieved. It doesn't clearly distinguish this from potential sibling tools that might also provide REAPER information, though the sibling list doesn't show direct alternatives.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'Use this to confirm connection is working.' This gives a specific use case. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (though the note about OSC being 'primarily for sending commands' implies this isn't for command execution).

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