mcp_engram_session_end

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

Despite no annotations, the description richly discloses behaviors: commits the session, extracts reasoning traces, refreshes caches, hot-promotes artifacts, mints manifests, and warns of data loss. It also notes that flat summaries are accepted but discouraged. Some jargon (e.g., '0x10 functor minting') is opaque but does not detract from overall transparency.

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 with information but could be more concise. It front-loads the mandatory call and reasoning trace support, but includes cryptic version-specific notes (e.g., '2026-06 Ritual Evolution') that may be unnecessary. Every sentence adds value, but some jargon reduces clarity.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits, and parameter semantics thoroughly. It explains side effects and consequences of skipping. However, it assumes domain knowledge of terms like 'ZEDOS_EPISODIC' and does not describe the return value, which is a minor gap.

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% with parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of 'minimal' (thin closure vs full compression), the 'prepare_compression' behavior, and detailed guidance for the 'summary' field content beyond the schema. This helps the agent choose appropriate parameter values.

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's purpose: 'Call at end of every conversation/task. Commits the session as ZEDOS_EPISODIC and extracts key reasoning traces...' It specifies the resource (session) and action (end/commit), and distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing its mandatory nature and reasoning trace extraction, contrasting with other engram tools.

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: 'MANDATORY... Call at end of every conversation/task.' Provides content guidelines for the summary field and warns of consequences of skipping. Does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the mandatory framing and discouragement of flat summaries indirectly guide usage.

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