session_brief

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It implies a read-like informational tool ('Re-orient', 'what THIS session decided/built') but does not explicitly state side effects, return format, or any prerequisites. It provides some behavioral context but not full 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?

The description is three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary use case. Each sentence adds value, including a clear directive, with no wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and an output schema exists, which reduces the need to explain return values. However, the parameter semantics are entirely unexplained, and the description lacks guidelines on how to interpret or use the brief, leaving a notable completeness gap.

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 single parameter 'minutes' has no schema description and the description text does not mention it. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fails to compensate. The name 'minutes' suggests a time span but its exact role remains ambiguous.

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 tool's purpose with specific language ('Re-orient after YOUR context compacted') and defines what it returns ('what THIS session decided/built'). It distinguishes from general recall but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools by name.

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 provides a clear usage context (after context compaction) and a direct directive ('Don't re-ask the user'). However, it does not mention alternative tools or list exclusions, leaving some ambiguity about when not to use it.

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