session_summary

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses what the summary includes (semantic facts, events, conflict/duplicate pairs) and implies it produces a summary for later consolidation rather than modifying memories. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is safe, read-only, or requires any permissions, which leaves some ambiguity.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently states the verb, resource, and output contents in a compact structure.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more detail about the return format and parameter semantics. It gives a high-level overview of the summary content but lacks the specifics needed for an agent to confidently invoke the tool and interpret results.

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%, and the description adds no direct explanation of memory_ids or compare_limit. The only hint is that 'one work session's memories' implies memory_ids are related to session memories, but compare_limit is completely unexplained, leaving a significant gap.

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 uses the specific verb 'summarize' and clearly identifies the resource ('one work session's memories') and enumerates output categories (semantic facts, episodic events, conflict and duplicate pairs). This makes it distinct from generic memory tools and provides a clear purpose.

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 phrase 'for post-session consolidation' gives clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, so it lacks the explicit exclusions or alternatives that would earn a 5.

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