tc_session_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true / destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is carried structurally; the description adds real value beyond that by naming the aggregation sources (audit log, recordings, snapshots, dumps) and the output artifact/path. It does not explain what inline vs file output yields, nor that overwrite=true can replace an existing file, and it discloses a filesystem write that sits uneasily next to readOnlyHint=true.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what the report contains, then where it lands. Little waste; only the parenthetical '(or out_path)' is slightly cryptic without schema context.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose, and the description covers report contents and destination. However, for a 3-parameter tool the meaning of inline and overwrite (and the overwrite risk) is missing, so the definition is not quite complete enough to invoke confidently.

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 0% for three parameters, so the description must compensate, but it only gestures at out_path ('or out_path'). The inline and overwrite parameters are undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving the agent to guess what inline returns and what overwrite destroys.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource: a Markdown handover report of 'this session', with contents enumerated (mode changes, writes, deploys, mutating calls, recordings, snapshots, dumps). This is distinguishable from siblings like tc_audit_tail (raw tail), exp_report, or rec_export, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'handover' – the agent can infer it is an end-of-session summarization step, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. tc_audit_tail for raw entries). No prerequisites or ordering guidance are given despite a large sibling surface.

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