crbro_session_log

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

Without annotations, the description carries full behavioral transparency burden. It clearly indicates a write operation ('Log') and its purpose ('record what was done'), which is sufficient for a simple logging tool. However, it does not disclose whether entries are append-only, overwrite existing logs, require prior session initialization, or what response is returned. These details, while not critical for a log tool, are absent.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose. The second sentence adds a critical timing instruction. There is no redundancy or wasted words, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 logging tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It specifies when to call it (end of session) and what it does. It does not elaborate on session context or relationships to sibling tools, but these are not required, and the description is adequate for an AI agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 100%, with each parameter already having a helpful description (e.g., summary, topics_touched, decisions_made, key_facts_added). The tool description adds no additional parameter details beyond referring to a 'session summary.' Since the schema handles parameter semantics, the baseline score of 3 applies.

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: 'Log a session summary to the hippocampus.' It specifies the exact action (log) and resource (session summary to hippocampus), and it distinguishes from siblings like crbro_sessions (which likely lists sessions) by adding 'Call at the end of a work session to record what was done.'

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Call at the end of a work session to record what was done.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the timing instruction is clear and actionable. Given sibling tools include crbro_sessions (reading) and crbro_learn (learning), the context is adequately established.

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