mind_session_start

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses deprecation and the v2.0 removal, which is exactly the context an agent needs to avoid this tool, but it never says whether invoking it still works, returns an error, or where it routes. For a tombstoned tool, that operational behavior is the key missing disclosure.

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 terse fragments with zero waste, front-loading the DEPRECATED marker and the replacement before the parenthetical purpose. Optimal for a tombstone entry.

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 deprecated single-parameter stub with no output schema, the replacement pointer and removal version are the essential facts and both are present. It could be more complete by confirming whether calls now fail or are proxied.

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 100% for the single `agent` parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no syntax, default, or meaning beyond that, which matches the baseline 3 when structured data does the work.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Start a new session") and explicitly names the successor tool that replaces it. An agent can identify this as a deprecated session-start stub without opening the schema. It falls short of 5 only because the deprecated framing, not the behavior, carries the identity.

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 an explicit, actionable directive: use mind_session(action="start") instead, and states it is removed in v2.0. The when-to-use and the alternative are both spelled out, leaving nothing to inference.

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