Post Mortem From Session

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds context about analyzing session event logs and generating a report artifact, but doesn't disclose return format, potential side effects, or whether the artifact is persisted. With annotations covering the read-only nature, the added behavioral context is moderate but not rich.

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 a single, grammatically complete sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Analyze') and object ('agent session event log'). Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple read-only tool with one required parameter and a well-documented schema, the description covers the core inputs and output concept. However, it does not describe the structure or content of the 'post-mortem observation and report artifact' and lacks an output schema, leaving some ambiguity about the return value. This is adequate but not fully complete.

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%; all three parameters (session_id, project, summary_title) have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('analyze') and resource ('agent session event log') and names the output ('post-mortem observation and report artifact'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_sessions or get_event_log by focusing on the post-mortem analysis and report generation.

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 implies usage after an agent session ends, using the session's event log. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, nor does it state prerequisites like the session being complete. The context is clear but not exhaustive, so it falls at the 'implied usage' level.

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