session

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: optional git worktree creation, archiving to history, prompting for cleanup on complete. However, it doesn't detail error states (e.g., if a session name already exists) or exact side effects of each action.

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 well-structured with bullet points and a concise summary sentence. Every sentence adds value—no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool's complexity (4 params, one enum) and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for usage. It covers the main workflows but lacks details on return values or error handling, which would improve completeness.

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 adds value by explaining each action enum value and specifying that worktree defaults to config.worktree.auto. The name and force parameters are already well-described in the schema, so the description provides moderate additional context.

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 manages development sessions and lists four specific actions (create, list, status, complete) with brief explanations. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'guide' or 'plan' which have different purposes.

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 usage guidance: 'Start with create when beginning work, end with complete when done.' It also indicates when to use each action (e.g., 'list: Show all active sessions') and implies alternatives by context.

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