phionyx_session_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. For a summary report, read-only is likely but not stated.

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, efficient sentence. It is front-loaded with 'Session summary' and lists key elements without fluff. Could be slightly more structured, but it is appropriately concise for a no-parameter tool.

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 parameters and an output schema that likely defines the return structure, the description adequately outlines the report contents. However, it does not specify when to invoke this tool (e.g., after certain operations), leaving some contextual gaps.

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?

No parameters exist in the input schema, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds meaning by enumerating the content of the report (claims, directives, etc.), compensating for the lack of param details. Baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the name.

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 states 'Session summary' and lists specific components (claims, directives, drift metrics, evidence taxonomy, physics state), clearly indicating a summary report tool. It distinguishes from siblings like phionyx_causal_trace or phionyx_verify_claim, which focus on specific aspects.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as phionyx_causal_trace or phionyx_verify_claim. The description implies it is for an overview, but lacks context or exclusionary criteria.

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