reelier_from_session

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return values (skill path, stats, open questions, or indication of nothing replayable), the behavior with relative time windows (binding to date variable), and that openQuestions flags this. It also notes the 'force' parameter for overwriting.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and usage. Each sentence adds value, though slightly verbose. Could be tightened slightly, but overall well-structured and efficient.

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?

No output schema, but description explains all return values. Covers required parameter source, common pitfalls (time window binding), and provides complete context for a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds significant value: explains transcriptPath should come from reelier_scan, default output path, force overwrite, name as filename stem, and the openQuestions tip about relative time windows. This goes well beyond the schema.

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 compiles a SKILL.md from a session transcript, using a specific verb ('Compile') and resource ('SKILL.md'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like reelier_scan and reelier_replay by specifying it's for work that already happened, not for live recording.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('work ALREADY happened') and when not to use ('NOT for work that hasn't happened yet'). Advises to get transcriptPath from reelier_scan first, providing clear context and exclusions.

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