mcp_engram_session_end

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: commits a summary, calculates thermodynamics based on memories, and warns that skipping results in lost work. It also specifies what to include in the summary.

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 front-loaded with the mandatory call, then explains consequences and summary content. It is slightly lengthy but each sentence adds value, earning a 4 rather than 5.

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 tool's critical role, the description is thorough: it explains purpose, consequences, and summary content. However, it does not describe the return value, but that is acceptable given no output schema and the tool's finality.

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?

The input schema has one parameter 'summary' with a basic description. The description adds detailed guidance on what to include (decisions, problems, files, questions, next steps), enriching the parameter's meaning 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 that this tool ends a session, commits a summary, and calculates thermodynamics. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mcp_engram_session_start by being mandatory at the end of every conversation or task.

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 states 'MANDATORY: Call this at the end of every conversation or distinct task' and details the consequences of skipping, providing strong guidance on when to use the tool.

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