session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden, but it only names high-level actions. It does not disclose whether starting, checkpointing, or ending a session mutates or deletes state, whether operations are reversible, or what persistence guarantees exist.

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 economical, front-loaded, and free of filler. However, for a tool with 14 parameters, the single short clause is under-sized and omits critical operational context.

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 14-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, this description is far from complete. An agent cannot determine required parameter combinations per action, the lifecycle semantics, or the meaning of most optional fields.

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 0%, so the description needs to compensate, but it only clarifies the `action` parameter by listing start/checkpoint/end values. The other 13 parameters, such as session_id, project_key, durable_facts, files_changed, and blockers, receive no semantic explanation.

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 identifies a specific resource, 'local memory session', and the lifecycle actions 'start, checkpoint, or end', so an agent can distinguish it from generic operations. It lacks an explicit contrast with sibling memory tools, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_bootstrap, memory_recall, or memory_consolidation, nor does it explain when each action should be invoked. The action verbs imply a lifecycle, but no selection criteria are stated.

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