mine_sessions

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

The description discloses that the tool mutates the decision store and is idempotent, aligning with annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It details force, incremental cursor, and threshold behavior. However, it omits edge cases like invalid project_root or error states.

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?

The description is dense and informative, front-loaded with the main purpose. At ~150 words, it covers key aspects efficiently, though it could be slightly more streamlined by grouping related details.

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?

Given 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, strategies, skipping, cursor, mutation, idempotency, and return format. It lacks error handling or performance details but is largely complete for an experienced user.

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?

All 7 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining strategy enum details, incremental_cursor semantics, and threshold interactions, but these are supplementary to 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 clearly states the verb 'Mine' and the resource 'session logs', specifying the types of information extracted (architectural decisions, tech choices, etc.). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like search_sessions by focusing on mining for decisions and preferences.

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 description explains when to use each strategy (regex, llm, hybrid) with trade-offs (cost, recall), and notes fallback behavior. It also mentions skipping already-mined sessions unless force=true. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives beyond the three strategies.

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