mine_session

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

Without annotations, the description states 'Read-only' and that it returns candidates grouped by kind. It does not disclose behavioral traits like permissions, error handling, or side effects beyond read-only. Adequate but minimal.

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 two sentences, efficiently delivering purpose, usage, and behavior. Every sentence earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the main action.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, when to use, read-only nature, and output format. It could mention limitations or prerequisites, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a tool of moderate 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 schema already documents both parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, e.g., it doesn't elaborate on session or path format. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it extracts reusable patterns, decisions, and learnings from a single chat-history session, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like chat_history_read (raw history) and memory_lookup (existing memory).

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 specifies when to use: 'Use to distill a finished session into durable memory before it ages out.' It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly exclude other uses or compare with alternatives. The guidance is clear but lacks exclusions.

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