memory_onboard

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

The description discloses that the tool performs 'join' and 'collision-check', which imply state mutation and potential validation failures. However, it does not specify whether it writes persistent state, what a collision entails, or any side effects beyond showing context. Since annotations are all false (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), the description carries the burden, and it provides only partial 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 a single, compact sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It contains no redundant words and efficiently communicates the tool's role. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description is too sparse for a tool with many optional parameters and an output schema. It does not mention the different briefing modes, the role of ticket_id, or what the output briefing contains. While the schema handles parameter details, the description should better tie the workflow together, especially given the large number of sibling tools.

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 description covers 0% of the schema parameters (per context signals) and provides no insight into how parameters like mode, agent_name, or token_budget affect behavior. Although the schema itself has rich parameter descriptions, the tool description fails to add any contextual meaning or usage examples, so it does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 identifies this as a session entrypoint with specific actions: join, collision-check, and show context. It distinguishes from siblings like memory_agent_join by being a combined/compact operation, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The verb 'join' and resource 'session' make the core purpose clear.

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 phrase 'session entrypoint' implies this is for starting or onboarding a session, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus siblings like memory_agent_join, memory_get_briefing, or memory_init. It does not state any exclusions or alternative conditions, leaving the usage context to be inferred.

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