memory_handoff

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering safety and world assumptions. The description adds useful behavioral context: it is namespace-aware and can include optional values. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the return payload, then states the intended use case, then adds the namespace-aware behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a two-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with fully described schema properties, the description covers what it returns, when to use it, and its namespace behavior. It does not detail the shape of the 'stats', but no output schema exists and the tool is low-complexity.

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%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's mention of 'optional values' loosely maps to include_values but adds no meaning beyond the schema's own 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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and a clear resource ('store stats + the most recently updated keys'), and it differentiates itself from siblings by positioning this as a consolidated session-start call rather than a stats+list+get fan-out.

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 the tool ('Designed for session start') and why it is preferable ('one call instead of stats+list+get fan-out'). However, it does not explicitly list exclusion cases or name the alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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