suggest_session_modification

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 return format but lacks disclosure of side effects, authentication needs, or whether it is read-only. The impact is moderate; it suggests a non-destructive analysis tool.

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 that front-loads the inputs and output. It is concise and to the point, with no wasted words.

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 complexity (3 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description provides a high-level overview but lacks details on parameter structures, defaults, and return format beyond the example. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps for the agent to infer.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the three inputs in natural language ('planned session', 'what was actually performed', 'current fatigue state'), which adds basic meaning. However, it does not detail the nested structure or optionality of 'actual' (default null), nor does it describe the schema definitions. Partially compensates but not fully.

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 returns a list of suggested adjustments based on planned session, actual performance, and fatigue state. It implies differentiation from siblings like 'recommend_session_for_today' or 'apply_plan_adjustment', though explicit sibling distinction is not provided.

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 gives context on when to use (when you have planned, actual, fatigue data) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. It provides moderate guidance.

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