dashclaw_session_start

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It reveals the behavioral trait of grouping subsequent actions for tracking and observability, but it does not disclose potential side effects, idempotency, or prerequisites like authentication. More details would improve 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 three concise sentences, each adding value: first states the action, second explains the purpose, third gives the usage context. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information.

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?

For a simple registration tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and usage. However, it lacks details about what the session record contains, how the session ID is returned, and error handling, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters (agent_id, branch, workspace) beyond what the schema already provides.

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 function: 'Register this agent session with DashClaw' and explains it creates a session record for tracking and observability. It distinguishes itself from siblings like dashclaw_session_end by specifying it should be called at the beginning of a 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 says to call this tool at the beginning of a task, establishing a governance boundary. While it doesn't mention when not to use it, the context of session start is unambiguous given the sibling dashclaw_session_end for closing.

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