get_session_context

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses the two return payloads (briefing and unconsolidated facts), which is important context. However, it doesn't state side-effect freedom or any limitations (e.g., staleness, performance), and the read-only nature is only implied by the name.

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 tight but not terse: first paragraph states the mandatory use case and equivalence to memory://briefing; second paragraph adds the fact-dedup rule. Every sentence carries operational meaning, and the most important usage instruction is front-loaded.

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 one-optional-param getter with no output scheema, it covers what, when, and why, plus a dup-avoidance nuance. It stops short of describing the response format of the briefing or facts, but an agent aware of memory://briefing has enough to proceed. No side-effect or error info is necessary for this simple call.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter with 'Session to query. Omit for the current session.' The description adds no extra param detail beyond referencing 'this session'; thus baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'returns' and names the resource: session context / working briefing. It clearly explains the tool returns the same briefing as memory://briefing plus unconsolidated session facts. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling get_context, so not a 5.

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 an explicit when: at the start of every conversation before answering, unless memory://briefing already loaded. It also gives a specific trigger for the facts portion: call before re-capturing a fact that may already be stored. This is direct, actionable guidance with an exclusion condition.

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