awake

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses return content and ordering ("overdue first", 24h window), which is useful, but never states that this is a non-mutating read or describes permissions/side effects — a notable gap given the generic mutation note inherited in the parameter text.

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, verb front-loaded, then a compact enumeration, then the trigger. The middle list is dense but every item earns its place by naming concrete returned artifacts.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned artifacts and their ordering, so an agent knows what comes back. What remains missing is any read-only/safety assurance, keeping it below a 5.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single optional initiative parameter with its cross-initiative/un-tagged semantics. The description adds no parameter guidance beyond that, making baseline 3 correct.

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 ("Restore") and resource ("session context") and then enumerates exactly what is assembled: pinned set, 24h episodes, open reviews, open tasks, pending claims, reasoning trails. This enumeration sharply distinguishes it from single-purpose siblings like recent, recall, or board.

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?

"Run this when re-entering a project" is a clear, concrete trigger. It gives no exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., when to prefer recall or overview instead), so it stops short of the 5 level.

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