kg_capture_session

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a write operation ('captures') and persistence ('maintaining context'), but does not disclose side effects, permissions, whether existing summaries are overwritten, or the response format. This is a significant gap for a state-changing tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and both sentences provide useful context: one describing what the tool does, the other when to use it. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 tool has six parameters and no output schema, so the description must cover behavior and outcomes. It explains purpose and usage context well, but does not mention what happens after capture (e.g., return value, retrieval method, or if it creates a new session entry). Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 detailed descriptions for all six parameters. The description mentions 'what was accomplished, artifacts created, and next actions' which loosely maps to summary, artifacts, and next_actions, but it adds no semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('captures') and resource ('session summaries'), and adds context ('at the end of work sessions') that distinguishes it from generic capture tools like kg_capture. It clarifies the exact purpose and scope of the tool.

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 when to use the tool ('Use at the end of work sessions') and the intended outcomes (record accomplishments, artifacts, next actions). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, falling short of a full exclusionary guide.

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