summarize_session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful context about the backend export-context flow and the output form, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether force_regenerate mutates cached state), performance, or permission implications.

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 main purpose and followed by guardrails and examples. Every sentence adds necessary guidance, with no filler.

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-value structure, and the usage preconditions are clearly stated. However, with no annotations and opaque parameters, the description is not complete for an agent deciding among siblings such as get_session or understanding force_regenerate behavior.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters. The examples only imply that session_id identifies a session; include_diffs, max_diff_lines, and force_regenerate are left entirely to inference from their names and defaults.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Return reusable markdown context for a ReclaimLLM session.' It clearly conveys the tool's function and differentiates it from search/list siblings by focusing on export-context output, though it does not name a sibling explicitly.

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?

It gives explicit trigger conditions with example phrases and a negative instruction: 'Do not infer this request from search results alone.' It lacks an explicit mention of alternatives, so it doesn't fully meet the highest bar.

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