Scan importable project history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden: it discloses the two data sources it reads, that it reports per-project session/memory counts and import status, and frames the output against the dashboard's Import History page. It still omits cost/latency, whether the scan is purely read-only, and any filesystem permission requirements.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and sources, then the return value. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the closing dashboard-comparison clause is more reassuring than strictly load-bearing.

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, the description must describe returns, and it does (per-project session/memory counts plus import status). With zero parameters and no annotations, the main remaining gap is operational context such as read-only safety and scan cost, which keeps it short 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies there is nothing to configure, though it does not explicitly say the scan is unconditional (whole machine).

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?

States a specific verb (scans) and two concrete resources (opencode.db session history and ~/.claude/projects/ Claude Code history), and narrows scope to history not yet imported into opencode-mem. An agent can tell exactly what this tool produces without opening anything else.

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 'has not yet been imported' qualifier implies the use case (checking what is left to import before running an import), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or alternative named. With no sibling tools, the routing burden is low, so this is adequate rather than strong.

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