start_session

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states the action 'start' but does not explain what starting a session entails: side effects, return values, persistence, or whether it overwrites existing sessions. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely creates state.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It immediately states the main action and the key parameters, making it highly concise and easy to parse. No filler or repetition.

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 has 7 parameters and no annotation context, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the session lifecycle, the purpose of configuration parameters, or any relationship to sibling tools. While an output schema exists (per context signals), the description alone is insufficient for an agent to fully understand when and how to use the tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions two of seven parameters ('goal' and 'constraints'), adding minimal meaning by indicating that goal is central and constraints are optional. However, it leaves the other five parameters (context, task_id, metadata, brain_config, memory_settings) completely unexplained, failing to provide sufficient semantics for the parameter set.

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 ('start') and resource ('new agent session'), clearly stating the tool's action. It implies scope by mentioning 'goal' and 'optional constraints', which distinguishes it from retrieval tools like get_session_context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools, so it falls short of 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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_session_context or configure_brain. It is only implied that 'new' sessions are started here, but there is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given.

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