librarian_session_log

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden; it does disclose the return shape, ordering ('newest last') and a conditional field ('withheld-hit count (xN, only when exclusions filtered something)'), which is real behavioral value. However, an output schema is present, so much of that return detail is duplicated, and it says nothing about access scope, whether the log spans other sessions, or cost/pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the when-to-use context before the field enumeration, with no filler. It is dense and the mid-sentence field list is a bit crowded, but every clause carries 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?

The output schema covers return values and annotations are absent, so the main gaps are parameter behavior and operational scope. The unresolved `caller` semantics and the entirely undocumented `limit` leave enough ambiguity that an agent could mis-invoke or over-fetch, given this is a two-parameter tool with zero schema documentation.

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 explain both parameters. It only addresses `caller`, and does so ambiguously -- '`caller` is an optional caller label; leave it empty' reads more like an output label than a filter, which leaves the agent unsure what setting it actually does. The `limit` parameter (default 30) is never mentioned at all.

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 states a concrete resource (this session's librarian interaction log) and its scope (workers + coordinator in the coordinating session), plus an explicit record shape ('one line per interaction, newest last, with caller, kind, ...'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like librarian_ask or librarian_status by framing it as a log/audit view for judging a worker report, though it never names an alternative.

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 opening clause 'For the coordinating session when judging a worker report' gives a clear activation context that an agent can match against a task. There are no exclusions or named alternatives, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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