pulse

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it picks checkpoint by created_at DESC, returns latest_checkpoint in full with relations, truncates other lists snippets, and recommends get_memory for full records. This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 concise, well-structured with a clear introductory sentence followed by detailed explanation of behavior and caveats. Every sentence provides unique value, and it is appropriately sized.

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 no output schema and multiple return components (checkpoint, handoffs, anti-patterns, notes), the description explains the output well but omits the input parameter 'domain' entirely. This leaves a gap in completeness.

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 single parameter 'domain' has 0% schema description coverage, but the description does not mention it at all. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent guessing about the parameter's purpose or effect.

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: 'Session warm-up: latest checkpoint + open handoffs/anti-patterns + recent notes.' It uses a specific verb-resource combination with scope, and distinguishes from siblings like recall/search and get_memory.

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 explicitly states when to use pulse (session warm-up, to get latest checkpoint by created_at DESC) and when not ('similarity-ranked top-1 can return stale checkpoint'). It also provides alternatives: use recall/search for relevance-ranked recall, get_memory for full items.

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