session_start_summary

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It describes the tool as returning a scored subset of lessons, implying a read-only operation. It details the scoring dimensions (relevance, recall count, severity, recency, outcome). However, it does not explicitly state if it is non-destructive or if any side effects occur (e.g., logging). A minor gap, but generally transparent.

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: first sentence states purpose and output, second sentence gives usage guidance. No redundant information, front-loaded with key details. Extremely concise and well-structured.

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 and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, when to use it, and what it returns (scored lessons). It mentions scoring factors but does not detail the exact output structure (e.g., fields returned). This is a minor gap, but overall the tool is well-described 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema; it uses 'focus' and 'top_n' in context but does not elaborate on constraints or formats. The description adds no extra value over the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 explicitly states the tool returns 'top-N most relevant lessons' for a focus topic, scored by multiple factors. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'session_start' by noting it is ideal when session_start returns too many lessons, providing clear 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 provides explicit guidance: 'Ideal when session_start returns too many lessons to fit in context (1000+ lesson brains). Use session_start for the full briefing including handoffs, streak, roadmap, and team telepathy.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool and when to use the alternative.

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