Start Session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well by disclosing the return contents ('full project overview including last session's next_steps, active tasks, blockers, and recent decisions') and the required kanban_url display behavior. It does not explicitly state whether starting a session has stateful side effects beyond 'Begin a work session,' but the main behavior is transparent enough.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: purpose first, then return contents, then when/how to call it, then the important display instruction. Each sentence adds necessary guidance without fluff or repetition.

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 complete enough for an agent to know when to invoke the tool, what to expect in the response, and one critical follow-up behavior (showing kanban_url). It does not detail edge cases like calling with no project parameter or how it relates to get_project_status, but the core context is present.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds practical context for the project parameter by explaining when to pass it explicitly, but it doesn't clarify the meaning of the `brief` parameter beyond what the schema already states.

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 and resource ('Begin a work session for a project') and clearly states what the tool returns. It distinguishes itself implicitly by describing the start-of-conversation role and the contents of the overview, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools like get_session_brief or get_project_status.

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 gives clear invocation guidance: 'Call this at the start of every conversation' and explains multi-project handling with 'call once per project — after that, pass project explicitly on every tool call.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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