omega_log_session

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool writes persistent data, returns JSON with specific fields (session_id, stored, entry_count), and implies the operation is safe (no destructive actions mentioned). Could elaborate on overwrite/append behavior, but sufficient for a log tool.

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 sentences that are front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage guidance and return value. No redundant information; every sentence earns its place.

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 4 parameters with full schema descriptions, a clear usage instruction, and declared return fields, the description is complete enough for the agent. Could include error handling, but the tool is straightforward and sibling tools are analytical, making this log tool well-defined.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, only restating some fields. Baseline is 3 when schema is complete, and the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 writes a complete session record to the vault for cross-session persistence, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling omega_vault_search by noting data is retrievable via that tool, ensuring no ambiguity.

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 instructs to use this tool at the end of a work session to record what was done, and mentions that data can be retrieved via omega_vault_search. This provides clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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