write_session_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the report will be saved 'with proper frontmatter and timestamps,' which adds some context beyond basic writing. However, it doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like whether this overwrites existing files, requires specific permissions, handles errors, or provides confirmation of success—critical for a write operation with no output schema.

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 perfectly concise and well-structured: two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and usage guidelines. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff. It's front-loaded with the core action and follows with specific context.

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 (8 parameters, write operation) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers purpose and usage context well but lacks behavioral details about the write operation's effects, error handling, or confirmation. For a tool that creates persistent artifacts, more disclosure about what 'saved' means would be helpful.

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 fully documents all 8 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter relationships or provide examples). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Write a session report to the Obsidian vault' with specific context about when to use it (end of coding sessions, after significant tasks, wrapping up work phases). It distinguishes from siblings like 'write_note' by specifying session reports with frontmatter and timestamps, though not explicitly contrasting with all siblings.

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 clear usage context: 'Use this at the end of coding sessions, after completing significant tasks, or when wrapping up work phases.' This gives explicit guidance on when to invoke the tool. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among sibling tools like 'append_to_daily_note' or 'write_note'.

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