jp_lit_annotate_session

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool does not modify unselected results or cache, only adds selection decisions. However, it underrepresents the ability to store rich trace data (search_attempt, decisions, evidence_scope) available in the input schema, which could mislead an agent into thinking it only does simple labeling.

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 concise with three sentences, front-loaded with the action ('write: session'), and efficiently provides core functionality and usage boundaries. The 'write: session' prefix is somewhat cryptic but acceptable.

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 complex input schema (nested objects, many parameters) and existence of an output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain the trace parameter or return value, but the output schema reduces burden. The tool's purpose and alternatives are clear, but completeness is adequate.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context like 'within current session' but does not significantly elaborate on parameter meanings beyond what the schema already provides.

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 it saves candidate labels and short notes within the current session, distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying what it does not modify (unselected results or cache), and mentions alternative tools for survey purpose (update_session_trace) and history search (find_sessions/list_sessions).

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool (for annotating/selecting candidates) and when not to use it (for overall survey purpose or history search), with specific sibling tool names provided.

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