mavis_session_log

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive 'clear' action (delete sessions older than N days) and lists all actions, but it does not elaborate on return formats, safety precautions, or file system side effects beyond the path. The initial verb 'Read' could be slightly misleading given that 'clear' mutates data.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource path and actions. No redundant wording; every sentence adds value. The structure is efficient and scannable.

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?

The description covers the main purpose and actions, but given no output schema, it lacks details on return formats (e.g., what 'list' returns, session ID format) and relies on the schema for parameter specifics. Adequate but not comprehensive for a multi-action tool.

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%, with each parameter having a description and constraints. The description adds minimal parameter detail beyond enumerating actions, so it relies on the schema's high coverage. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it reads agent run traces from a specific path (~/.mavis-mcp/agent-sessions/) and enumerates supported actions (list, get, tail, clear). This distinguishes it from sibling tools by its focus on session logs and explicitly mentions the relevant agent (mavis_coder_agent).

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use to debug, audit, or post-mortem past mavis_coder_agent runs.' This provides clear context and implies the tool is for retrospective analysis, though it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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