Session Report

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is already carried. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the report is written to durable storage and requires a verified capability token from the persisted session petitioner, which is an auth requirement the annotations do not express.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what is produced, then the auth requirement, then a pointer to read-only alternatives. Each sentence contributes and none is padding.

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?

For a write tool with no output schema, the description covers the write behavior, storage destination, and auth precondition reasonably well. However, with 0% schema coverage it leaves the parameters and the json/markdown output distinction unexplained, so it is not fully complete for correct invocation.

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% and none of the three parameters (caller, session_id, response_format) are explained in the description. There is also mild tension: the description promises a Markdown report while response_format defaults to json and offers markdown, with no explanation of that choice.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Generate and save a Markdown report') and enumerates the content it contains (convergence, peer decisions, failures, costs, latest events). It implicitly differentiates from read-only siblings by noting other peers can inspect via read-only tools, though it doesn't name a specific alternative report/metric tool.

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 states a precondition (requires the verified capability token of the persisted session petitioner) and contrasts with read-only inspection tools, giving implied context. But it never says when to choose this over siblings like session_metrics, session_peer_reliability_report, or session_finalize, leaving the choice to inference.

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