nmem_session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose the important scope trait that state lives only for the current session and is not persisted across sessions. However, it says nothing about mutation semantics — whether 'set' replaces or merges existing state, or whether 'end' destroys it — which matters for a stateful tool.

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?

Three short sentences, zero waste, with the core purpose front-loaded ahead of the scoping caveat and the alternative routing. Nothing needs to be trimmed and nothing is buried.

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 7-parameter stateful tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope and routing but omits what a call actually returns (e.g., what 'get' yields, what 'end' reports) and the interaction between compact/token_budget and the response. Adequate but with real gaps given there is no output schema to lean on.

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%, so all seven parameters (including action enums and token_budget/compact behavior) are already documented in the schema, making 3 the correct baseline. The description's parenthetical '(task, feature, progress)' merely echoes a subset of fields and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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+resource ('Track current session state') and immediately scopes it with the listed fields (task, feature, progress). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling nmem_eternal by naming what it is not (cross-session persistence), so an agent can pick it without opening either schema.

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 when-not ('Single-session only') paired with a named alternative ('For cross-session persistence use nmem_eternal'), which is exactly the routing signal an agent needs against a crowded sibling set. The condition that selects the alternative is stated, not inferred.

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