add_session_summary

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 next AI session will read the summary, implying persistence, but does not specify whether summaries accumulate or overwrite, nor any destructive effects or authorization requirements. Basic purpose is clear, but behavioral details are lacking.

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?

Three concise sentences: the first commands when to call, the second specifies content, the third explains the purpose. Zero wasted words, front-loaded with the key usage instruction. Highly efficient and scannable.

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 simple logging tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate. It covers what, when, and why. It does not mention how summaries are stored or retrieved later (e.g., through a sibling tool), but the tool's function is sufficiently self-contained. A minor gap is the lack of mention of any limits or accumulation behavior.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The tool's description reiterates the same guidelines ('Summarize what you accomplished...') already present in the schema. The only added value is the context for when to call, not parameter-specific meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: to be called at the end of every coding session to summarize accomplishments, remaining tasks, and blockers. It explicitly identifies the verb (summarize) and resource (session session) and distinguishes from siblings like log_decision or get_conflicts by focusing on session state handoff.

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 explicitly states when to call the tool ('at the END of every coding session'), providing clear usage context. It does not discuss when not to use it or name specific alternatives, but the singularity of purpose and sibling tool list make exclusions implicit.

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