memento_session

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only lists actions without explaining any side effects, destructive potential, required permissions, or what responses look like. For a tool with multiple actions, this is insufficient.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the list of actions could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) to improve readability. Overall, it earns its place without wasted words.

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 tool has 6 parameters and 5 actions, yet the description provides no details on return values, action-specific parameter requirements, or usage constraints. Without output schema, the agent lacks essential context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 67%, meaning two parameters lack descriptions. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It fails to clarify when each parameter is relevant (e.g., which actions use session_id vs reason vs workspace_root).

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 'Manage Memento sessions' combined with the listed actions (begin, resume, handoff, status, list) clearly states the tool's purpose and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like memento or memento_remember, but the focus on sessions is distinct enough.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about prerequisites, typical workflows, or scenarios where this tool should be preferred over other memento tools.

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