Set Retrieval Depth Preference

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

Annotations include idempotentHint=true, and the description aligns perfectly by noting the setting is saved and auto-applied, implying idempotency and no side effects. It adds value by clarifying that the preference is persistent and linked to git email, which is beyond what annotations provide.

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: four sentences total, with the first sentence stating purpose, the next explaining persistence, and the last three defining options. Every sentence is valuable and front-loaded.

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 simple preference-setting tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what it does, how it persists, how to use the depth levels, and parameter details. It is complete for the task.

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?

The input schema has 50% coverage (engineer_id has description, depth does not), but the description compensates fully by explaining the three enum values ('minimal', 'standard', 'deep') with detailed contexts. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Set your personal retrieval depth preference for session init.' This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinctly identifies what the tool does, and it differentiates from siblings which are about tasks, blockers, workflows, etc.

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?

The description explains the persistence ('saved by your git email and applied automatically on every future session') and defines the three depth levels with practical guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it, which would elevate the score to 5.

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