intake

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about the packet contents (e.g., supported-coverage state, questions to resolve, player-declared fields), which helps the agent understand the tool's output. However, it does not explain behavioral aspects like whether a valid 'ref' is required for existing sessions.

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 a single sentence with a colon-separated list, making it compact but dense. It uses unexplained jargon like 'supported-coverage state' and 'baseline-snapshot hint', which reduces readability. It is not front-loaded with the most essential information and does not clearly state what the tool does.

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 tool has one required parameter that is completely undocumented, and the description gives no clue about its purpose. It also lacks usage context and sibling differentiation. While an output schema exists, the description still fails to explain the input, making the tool incomplete for an agent to invoke 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?

The schema has one required parameter 'ref' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention 'ref' at all, so the agent has no idea what value to provide. With zero compensation from the description, this is a critical gap.

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 lists the contents of a 'pre-session packet' but lacks an explicit verb like 'generates' or 'returns'. It is specific about the resource but does not clearly distinguish itself from siblings like 'snapshot' or 'report' that might also provide state summaries.

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 phrase 'pre-session' implies use before a session, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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