session_enter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that it registers the app/session pair, resolves entry mode, and returns a comprehensive orientation payload, including project info, ORIENT.md presence, standing records, and handoff. It also mentions lifecycle continuation via closing tools. It does not cover authentication or side-effect reversibility, but the description is quite transparent for a session entry tool.

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 but every sentence earns its place. It opens with a strong purpose statement, lists the return orientation details, and closes with lifecycle instructions. No filler or redundancy; it is appropriately structured for the complexity.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description fully compensates by listing the orientation return contents (project info, ORIENT.md presence, standing records, handoff, collection aliases, FRANK ledger). It also covers the two entry modes and the closing continuation, making it complete for a session entry tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the importance of `app_id`/`session_id` as the pair, and `dispatch_id` for specialist entry. However, it does not clarify the meaning or purpose of `project` and `workspace`, leaving two parameters without proper semantic guidance.

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 is explicit: 'FIRST CALL of any session' with a specific verb 'registers' and clearly distinguishes this as the session entry point. It explains what the tool does (register session pair, resolve entry mode) and differentiates from closing tools by naming them explicitly.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use: 'FIRST CALL of any session', and a direct condition: 'pass `dispatch_id` when entering to work an assigned packet'. It also specifies alternatives for closing the session: 'session_handoff_write (human path) or handoff_write_v4 (dispatch path)', giving sequence and choice.

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