read_last_session

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it implies a read operation ('read', 'in one call') but never states that it is side-effect-free or that it does not consume/reset the session. The 'wake-up ritual' framing is suggestive but non-standard, and its behavioral consequence is left implicit.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the what-it-returns content comes before the when-to-use directive. Both sentences earn their 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?

With an output schema present and zero parameters, the description needs only to sell the purpose and timing, which it does. Minor gap: 'Status note' and 'journal entries' are not terms used by any sibling tool, so the agent cannot easily map them to read_note/list_notes.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed by describing the call as a single bundled fetch.

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?

Names the exact contents returned (Status note, open goals, last journal entries, current game state) and frames them as one aggregated call. That enumeration distinguishes it from siblings like read_note, current_goals, and read_game_state without requiring the agent to open any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Use this FIRST at session start or whenever your conversation history feels thin (freshly compacted).' The 'first' directive plus the compaction scenario is clear context, though it never states a when-not case or points to the granular siblings as follow-ups.

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