jambavan_memory_mine_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 discloses that the tool performs deterministic text mining and stores results as OKF memories, but does not mention side effects, idempotency, or permissions. The description is truthful but lacks depth on behavioral traits like whether it overwrites existing memories.

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 concise sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence immediately conveys the action and output. The second adds key clarifying detail (deterministic, no external service). Perfectly front-loaded and 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?

The description covers the core action and deterministic nature, but lacks information about return values, error cases, or what happens after storage (e.g., confirmation). With no output schema, more detail on the outcome would improve completeness. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context ('from a pasted session transcript or log') but does not significantly extend beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. No additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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's purpose: 'Mine durable facts, decisions, TODOs, and constraints from a pasted session transcript or log.' It uses a specific verb ('Mine') and resource ('session transcript or log'), and distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing deterministic text mining versus summarization or external services.

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 implies usage when deterministic fact extraction is needed (explicitly noting 'no summarization or external service'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. Siblings like jambavan_memory_store or jambavan_memory_recall exist, but no comparative guidance is given.

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