Sessions

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

The description discloses that capture and complete write rows, which is consistent with destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. It does not elaborate on what complete does to existing rows, whether writes are reversible, or any permission/auth requirements, so it adds only modest context beyond the annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main capture path, and every clause carries information. The middle sentence packs list and search together and the final sentence is dense, but there is no filler.

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 27-parameter multi-action tool with no output schema, the description covers the core write/read actions but omits list filtering, pagination, and many supporting parameters that appear only in the schema. It is minimally complete, but not rich enough to explain the full action surface or the destructive edge of complete.

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 93%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a meaningful default not stated in the schema: category defaults to context. It also maps action to required parameters (content for capture, title for start, summary for complete), though those required markers largely repeat the schema.

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 names the specific actions (capture, list, search, start, complete) and what each does, including the key distinction between an implicit session and an explicit one. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish capture from sibling tools like rbook_learnings or rbook_decisions even though it writes the same row types.

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?

It gives some useful guidance: capture works without starting a session, and explicit sessions are optional. But it never says when to prefer list versus search, when to use rbook_learnings instead, or when explicit sessions are actually warranted, so usage is only implied for most actions.

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