chronica_session_tick

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

Although no annotations are provided, the description details what the tool returns (now_local, since_last_memory, etc.) and implies it is a read-only operation with minimal side effects. It does not explicitly state non-destructiveness but the context strongly suggests it is safe.

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 well-structured, with clear sections for usage instructions and return value meanings. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., using headings), but it efficiently conveys all necessary information without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains the return JSON fields, usage pattern, and relationship to sibling tools, providing all information needed 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 coverage is 100% for the single optional parameter. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: 'thread_id' is optional and when omitted, the calculation uses overall recent memory. This clarifies behavior that the schema alone does not convey.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: to be called every turn before replying to synchronize time and elapsed since last memory. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool chronica_compose_opening, which is for opening greetings.

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?

Provides explicit instructions on when to call ('every turn before replying') and when not to use it (first message should use chronica_compose_opening instead). Also mentions 'always allow' recommendation and minimal load, guiding agent decision-making.

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