save_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 describes the tool's behavior (saving state for later loading) and implies it's a write operation, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, or storage limits. It adds some context (e.g., automatic loading by next instance) but is incomplete for a mutation tool without annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and usage timing, followed by details on what to capture. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action and timing, the second specifies content, and the third explains the outcome. No wasted words, making it highly efficient.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters with 50% schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, usage timing, and parameter semantics for 'summary', but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling and doesn't fully compensate for the missing parameter documentation for 'tags'.

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 50% (only 'summary' has a description). The description adds meaning by explaining what 'summary' should contain ('Capture: what's in progress, what's blocked, what's done, decisions made'), which clarifies beyond the schema's generic description. However, it doesn't address 'tags', leaving one parameter partially undocumented.

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 specific action ('Save current session state') and resource ('session state'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'load_session' (which loads) and memory tools (which handle different resources). It specifies what gets captured: 'what's in progress, what's blocked, what's done, decisions made', making the purpose explicit and differentiated.

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 this tool: 'before conversation ends or context compresses'. It also mentions the alternative ('The next agent instance loads this automatically'), though not by tool name. This provides clear context for usage versus not using it, aligning with the highest score criteria.

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