Last Update Tool

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and credit goes to added context. With no output schema, the description is the only source of return-value information, and it does enumerate the payload (last update, the 'since' moment for git log --since, open/new tasks, next_steps, day start), which genuinely helps an agent plan. It omits failure behavior when no project resolves, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

It is a single short sentence, so it is compact, but it is not front-loaded with what the tool does — the imperative is a usage cue rather than a purpose statement. Nested parentheticals ('since', for git log --since) and the dangling final clause make it harder to parse than its length suggests.

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 three-optional-parameter, read-only lookup with a fully documented schema, the essentials are close to covered: the schema itself explains the repo/project/session resolution precedence. What the description leaves unclear is the exact purpose framing and what happens when nothing can be resolved. Adequate minimum-viable coverage, nothing more.

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 coverage is 100% and the per-parameter descriptions are already strong and actionable (repo = output of git remote -v, project = slug, session from the cemainou line). The description adds nothing about any of the three parameters; the mention of 'since' refers to a returned value, not an input, and could even be misread as a parameter. Baseline 3 applies.

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 never states an operation verb; it lists payload contents ('your own last update on the project, the moment to report from, your open and new tasks, and next_steps'), which lets an agent infer that this is a read that gathers reporting context. It does not name or distinguish itself from plausible siblings such as log_update, my_day, whoami, or project_brief. Adequate but the purpose must be reconstructed from the field list.

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?

'Call it first when reporting' is a real sequencing directive that implies when to use it, and it is the strongest routing signal here. However, the trailing clause 'Also when your work day started' is grammatically broken and reads as a second trigger of unclear meaning. No when-not-to-use condition and no alternatives are named, despite there being ~35 siblings.

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