wrap_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, and the description reinforces this with 'never mutates.' It adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotation, such as returning unwrapped_count and recommend_wrap, and instructing the agent to offer a wrap rather than act silently. Minor gap: no mention of error conditions or edge cases, but the core behavior is fully disclosed.

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 compact (~75 words) with front-loaded purpose and no fluff. Every sentence contributes either usage timing, return values, or an explicit behavioral rule. It is structured logically: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and how to act on the result.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully documents return values (unwrapped_count, projects touched, recommend_wrap) and the recommended action. It also covers usage timing and the read-only nature. Given the tool's relative simplicity and strong annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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%, with both threshold and session_id having clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description itself does not add extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, but it hints at the threshold's purpose via 'recommend_wrap' logic. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full load.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Check how much state-changing work has accumulated since the last wrap.' It clearly differentiates from the sibling tool 'wrap_auto' by positioning itself as the read-only check (Tier 1) that decides whether to offer a wrap, not perform it.

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?

Explicitly states when to call: 'when the user signals they are wrapping up or ending a session, or periodically during a long session.' It also provides a clear exclusion: 'do not auto-wrap silently from this tool,' and implies alternative behavior by mentioning the auto-wrap tier.

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