design_session_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that missing data yields a one-line 'nothing logged' statement, that session_id blank resolves to the most recently active session, that output_path's folder must exist, that paths inside the installed eda_agent package are refused, and that blank writes nothing. The return shape is also disclosed. It does not state whether an existing file is overwritten or whether the run is mutated, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 what/scope leads, followed by contents, args, and returns, so it is well front-loaded. The enumerated list of body sections is long but functional, telling the agent exactly what the output contains; still, it is the one part that could be trimmed without losing call-critical information.

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 two-optional-parameter, no-annotation tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, data provenance, section ordering, empty-section behavior, both parameters with edge cases, and the return/error shape. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.

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%, so the description must carry everything, and it does: session_id is defined including its blank/default fallback to the most recently active session, and output_path is defined with side effects, the folder-existence requirement, the forbidden package path, and the blank no-write behavior.

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?

Uses a specific verb phrase ('write up a design run from its session journal, as markdown') plus an explicit statement that the content is assembled only from what the run recorded. This clearly separates it from design_session_log (which records) and design_live_note / design_review_snapshot siblings without ambiguity.

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 establishes the context (produce a report from an already-recorded session journal) and points to design_session_log for how notes get their topic, which helps the agent understand the data flow. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over design_live_note, design_review_snapshot, or app_get_report, nor does it state prerequisites such as needing a session to exist first.

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