Metis — Save Session Event

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'write-through guarantee' and 'content (truncated to 2000 chars)', adding useful context. However, it does not describe success/failure behavior, idempotency, or what happens on duplicate events.

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: a one-line purpose, followed by usage guidance, event types, and parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value with no 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 output schema exists (not shown), the description provides adequate context for a simple logging tool: when to use, what to provide, and truncation. It could mention error handling or return value, but the output schema likely covers that.

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 compensate. It explains each parameter: session_id comes from session_bootstrap(), event_type is a category, and content is truncated. It also enumerates valid event types. While it lacks format constraints, it adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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: 'Persist one atomic event to session_events (write-through guarantee)'. It provides a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying it is for atomic event persistence and should be called after every tool call, file write, and classification decision.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Call this after every tool call, file write, and classification decision.' This provides clear context, but it does not mention when not to use it or offer alternatives among sibling tools.

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