Project Tessera

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 as a read operation ('Get a session-start context briefing'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or response format. It adds some context about priming at conversation start, but behavioral traits are minimally covered.

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 in the first sentence and usage guidance in the second, with no wasted words. Every sentence adds value, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, but has output schema), the description covers purpose and usage well. However, it lacks details on the 'days' parameter and behavioral aspects like response format, though the output schema mitigates some of this. It's mostly complete but has minor gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter, the description does not mention the 'days' parameter at all. However, since there is only one optional parameter with a default, the tool can be used without it, and the description's focus on context priming compensates partially. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, but the lack of param info slightly reduces it from 5.

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 with specific verbs ('Get a session-start context briefing') and resources ('recent decisions, preferences, active topics, and last session summary'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'recent_sessions' or 'user_profile' by focusing on priming context at conversation start.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('Call this at the beginning of a conversation to prime your context') and provides a clear alternative context ('with the user's recent knowledge'), guiding the agent on timing and purpose without ambiguity.

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