palinode_session_init

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already indicate safe, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by explaining the tool returns a 'bounded digest' and listing its components, but it does not contradict annotations. No side effects or additional behavioral traits are disclosed beyond what annotations imply.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Session-start context'), and each sentence provides essential information with no redundancy or fluff.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description adequately explains the return value ('resolved project scope with... bounded digest'). It covers the essential aspects for a session init tool, though it could mention error handling or behavior on repeated calls, which is mitigated by the idempotent hint.

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%, and the description adds minimal information beyond what the schema already provides (default CWD behavior). The description does not elaborate on parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline for high coverage but does not exceed it.

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 purpose ('Session-start context') and specifies that it should be called first in a new conversation. It also details the return content (project scope, session snapshots, core memories, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools that are not initialization tools.

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 explicitly says 'call this FIRST in a new conversation,' providing clear usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, though the sibling tool names imply that other tools are for different operations.

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