capture_work_session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals that the tool appends a timestamped section, conditionally records Git branch/SHA/dirty state, and never persists secrets or full diffs. It doesn't cover file-creation edge cases or failure behavior, but the core side effects are transparent.

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 short sentences with no filler: purpose, mechanics, and safety constraint. The most important behavioral facts are front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and an existing output schema, the description covers purpose, key behavior, Git-related handling, and a safety boundary. The main gap is that it never explains when to use this tool versus the similar sibling append_daily_note, or versus record_decision.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify repository_path behavior and constrains 'changes' via the no-full-diffs rule, but it leaves project, summary, decisions, next_steps, and open_questions to be inferred from their names.

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 verb ('capture') and resource ('that day's session note'), and adds concrete behavioral details like timestamped appending and Git metadata. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'append_daily_note', whose name suggests a similar append-to-note operation.

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 gives a clear context: use this to capture meaningful work performed during a coding session. It also implicitly discourages submitting secrets or full diffs. However, it does not state when-not-to-use or name alternatives like append_daily_note or record_decision.

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