end_session

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses multiple behavioral traits: writes to a local SQLite database, stores records with a typed 'type' column, links to session_id, creates a session row with summary/orientation/gap count, includes a warning for unreviewed PreCompact captures, and mentions searchability and boot_report retrieval. This is thorough and non-misleading.

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?

Although the description is moderately long, it is dense and well-structured. It begins with the core purpose, flows into storage details, and concludes with the workflow. Every sentence adds operational information, and there is no redundancy or 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?

Given 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all critical aspects: what gets written, how records are typed and linked, how to retrieve them later, the session row side-effect, and the warning behavior. It also explains the intended workflow. This is a complete description for a complex tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value beyond the schema by explaining the overall storage model (typed column, session_id linkage), the relationship to boot_report, and the workflow. However, it does not add much per-parameter detail that isn't already in the schema, so a 4 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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Capture a structured session handoff.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_captures or store_memory by focusing on session-end aggregation and persistence. The phrase 'Writes multiple records to the local SQLite database' further specifies scope and 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 states a clear usage trigger: 'call end_session at the end of every substantive session so the next session can pick up the thread.' It provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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