erinys_session_summarySave an end-of-session summary covering goals, discoveries, and accomplishments to preserve project context for future AI agent recall.
Save comprehensive end-of-session summary (Goal/Discoveries/Accomplished).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | ||
| project | Yes | ||
| session_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions saving a summary and the content structure, but omits whether this overwrites existing data, what permissions are required, and how the optional session_id affects the write. For a mutation tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though it may be too terse given the lack of annotations and parameter documentation.
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 not be explained. But the description is incomplete for a three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and zero schema descriptions. It should at minimum cover required fields, session_id behavior, and how this tool relates to nearby save/session tools.
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%, so the description must compensate. It partially explains the 'content' parameter via the Goal/Discoveries/Accomplished structure, but leaves 'project' and 'session_id' completely undocumented, including what session_id null means.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Save ... end-of-session summary.' It also names the expected content sections (Goal/Discoveries/Accomplished). However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like erinys_save, erinys_session_end, or erinys_batch_save.
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 phrase 'end-of-session' implies the usage context, so an agent can infer this is for wrapping up a session. But there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over erinys_save or erinys_session_end, and no exclusions or alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.