One-shot session onboarding brief

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool builds the index itself if the repo is unseen, automatically consults the journal, and checks each saved conclusion against the current index, flagging stale ones with ✓/⚠. It does not detail side effects or persistence, but the core behavioral traits are clearly communicated.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the critical 'CALL THIS FIRST' directive. Every clause adds functional value: when to use it, the unseen-repo exception, the alternative approach, and the output's components with staleness markers. No filler or repetition.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, usage timing, and output content. It does not explain internal journal mechanics or return format, but those are not essential for correct invocation given the schema's complete parameter coverage.

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?

The only parameter `limit` is fully described in the input schema with a default value, achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with the imperative 'CALL THIS FIRST in a fresh chat' and defines the tool as 'One synthesized opener' that covers repo identity, recent session focus, and stale-checked conclusions. It explicitly distinguishes itself from `memory_list` + `recap` and from `index_repo`, making its unique purpose clear.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'CALL THIS FIRST in a fresh chat'. It also covers the special case of an unseen repo where the tool builds the index itself rather than redirecting to `index_repo`, and positions itself as an alternative to manually stitching `memory_list` + `recap`.

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