Prompt Fallback (mj_session_summary)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral fact that this is a fallback path rather than a primary operation, but says nothing about what the invocation yields or how it differs from the prompt version.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the fallback condition is stated first. It is possibly too terse rather than bloated, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not strictly required, and the tool is a no-arg passthrough. Still, an agent has no sense of when this fallback should be chosen over reading the prompt directly or over the analogous resource-fallback siblings, which is the main missing piece.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the 100% schema coverage confirms no hidden inputs. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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 the tool's role as a fallback handler for the mj_session_summary prompt when used as a tool, which is a specific framing. However, it never says what the tool actually returns or produces (presumably the rendered session-summary prompt content), and it does not distinguish itself from similar fallback siblings such as mj_read_resource or memory_read_resource.

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 'when invoked as an MCP tool instead of an MCP prompt' implies the usage condition — the agent should prefer the prompt form when available. It does not explicitly name the prompt as the preferred alternative or state any other precondition, leaving the guidance implicit.

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