What's New

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about returning new items (delta) and the types of changes, which is useful beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key concept ('cross-session delta'). Every word adds value, with no unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, many sibling tools, multiple data types), the description covers the essential purpose and output categories. With an output schema present, return value details are handled elsewhere. Could add more parameter-specific context but still adequate.

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 0%, so the description should compensate, but it only gives a high-level purpose. The parameter names ('since', 'agent_id', 'project_path', 'limit', 'response_format') are somewhat self-explanatory, but no format or scope details are provided. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool's purpose as a 'cross-session delta' that returns new memories, KG triples, file changes, and commits since a given timestamp or last session. It uses a specific verb ('delta') and resource ('cross-session'), and effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools by combining multiple data types.

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 implies usage for obtaining a summary of recent changes across sessions and data types. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives (e.g., specific memory_list or kg_query tools), leaving some guidance for the agent to infer.

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