ecg_get_session

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses the return payload, that database and embeddings are reported as independent status objects with degradation isolation, and that it does not store facts. It omits whether starting a session creates or mutates server-side state, whether it is idempotent, and any auth or consent prerequisites.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by return contents and then two sharp caveats. The enumerated return fields are justified because no output schema exists. The section is slightly list-heavy but each clause carries information.

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 responsibly enumerates the return shape; with no annotations, it partially covers behavior via the no-facts-stored note and degradation semantics. For a one-parameter session bootstrap it is nearly complete, missing only explicit side-effect and prerequisite disclosure.

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, and it does: it clarifies that the single `path` accepts the project root or any file inside it, and explicitly warns not to pass a login secret. That is genuine semantic value beyond the bare `{"type": "string"}` schema, though it stops short of specifying absolute vs relative path form.

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 pair and resource: 'Start or resume the engineering-memory session for a project path.' An agent knows exactly what this does. It does not name or distinguish itself from any sibling tool (e.g., ecg_stats or ecg_approve_consent), which the rubric requires for a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Start or resume ... for a project path' and reinforced by 'This call does not store facts', which tells the agent not to expect persistence. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative among the 11 siblings, so the agent must infer sequencing (e.g., call this before ecg_commit_step).

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