session_log

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

Without annotations, the description reveals key behaviors: automatic handoff memory creation for 'partial'/'blocked' outcomes, retirement for 'completed'. However, it does not mention side effects like overwriting handoff state, destructive actions, or auth requirements.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. Information is front-loaded with the core action, followed by conditional behavior details.

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 description explains side effects (handoff memory) but lacks error cases, rate limits, or guidance on parameter usage for the 11 undocumented fields. Given 13 parameters and no output schema, more detail would improve completeness.

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 coverage is low (23%), and the description only semantically clarifies 'outcome' and 'next_steps' in the context of handoff behavior. Most parameters (model, client, surface, etc.) remain unexplained, failing to compensate for the schema gap.

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 verb 'Record' and the resource 'session summary at the end of significant agent work'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like memory_write by emphasizing session logging and automatic handoff behavior.

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 specifies when to use ('at the end of significant agent work') and explains behavior based on outcome values. It does not explicitly exclude situations or name sibling tools, but context signals show it's distinct from general memory tools.

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