Session Context

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 describes the tool's function and return values ('Returns previous session summaries and key observations'), which is helpful. However, it lacks details on potential limitations, such as data availability, error conditions, or performance aspects, leaving some behavioral traits unspecified.

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 sized and front-loaded, with two concise sentences that directly state the purpose and usage without unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value, making it efficient and easy to understand for an AI agent.

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's moderate complexity (single optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, but lacks details on output format, error handling, or integration with other tools, which could enhance completeness for effective agent use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'limit' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or details about parameters beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating with extra insights.

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 the specific action ('Get context from previous coding sessions'), resource ('previous session summaries and key observations'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on context retrieval rather than session management (like session_start/end) or other operations. It explicitly mentions the purpose for recovering lost context or manual review.

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 on when to use this tool ('after compaction to recover lost context, or to manually review session history'), which helps differentiate it from general search or session management tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, such as memorix_search for broader queries.

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