memorix

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: it returns previous session context, auto-closes previous active sessions, and tracks activity. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, rate limits, or what 'injected context' entails. For a session management tool with no annotations, this is adequate but leaves gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by key behaviors and usage instructions in three concise sentences. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second explains the return value, and the third provides usage and side effects. There's no wasted text, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 (session management with 2 parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, return value, usage timing, and side effects (auto-closing previous sessions). However, it lacks details on output format or error cases, which could be important for a tool without an output schema.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('sessionId' and 'agent') fully. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain format or usage examples). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 tool's purpose: 'Start a new coding session' and 'Returns context from previous sessions so you can resume work seamlessly.' It specifies the verb ('Start') and resource ('session'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'memorix_session_end' by indicating this is for beginning sessions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'memorix_session_context', which might also involve session context retrieval.

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 usage context: 'Call this at the beginning of a session to track activity and get injected context.' This gives explicit guidance on when to use it (at session start) and implies it's for initiating work. It doesn't specify when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for basic usage.

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