Build a re-seed handoff brief

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

With no annotations, the description discloses a key side effect: 'Always written to disk too'. It also notes the brief is 'self-contained'. But it doesn't state whether this tool modifies the current context, requires specific permissions, or what the tool returns as its direct result.

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 two concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the verb and purpose, while the second provides practical context. Every word earns its place.

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?

It explains what the brief contains, its use case, and the disk-writing behavior. Missing are return-value details, prerequisites (e.g., active session or existing files), and clarification of sessionId. Given 3 parameters and no output schema, some gaps remain.

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 67%, leaving sessionId undocumented. The description provides no parameter-level guidance, so it doesn't compensate for that gap. OutPath and includeFileContents are already described in the schema, but the tool description adds no further meaning.

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 ('Produce') and resource ('re-seed handoff brief'), enumerates its contents ('rules + latest summary + verification ledger + active files'), and clearly states the goal ('to START A FRESH CHAT'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explaining the token-reclaiming workflow.

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 says when to use this tool: to reclaim tokens on hosts like Copilot by opening a new chat and seeding it with the brief. It also mentions the disk-write fallback for MCP unavailability. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative context-management tools.

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