session

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

The description comprehensively discloses behaviors beyond annotations: e.g., end 'closes session bookkeeping — it does NOT capture memories', and capture 'operates on the text, not on tracked-session state'. Annotations already show readOnlyHint=false, consistent with mutations. No contradictions. Could mention rate limits or permissions but still strong.

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 with a summary line, action bullet list, and parameter definitions. It is somewhat long but every sentence adds value. Minor redundancy: 'digest' action description includes parameter details repeated in the arg list, but acceptable.

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 (17 parameters, 7 actions) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all actions and parameters thoroughly, including edge cases like abandon_stale and gaps in digest. No significant gaps for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose per action, e.g., 'summary: For end — optional closing note. For capture — REQUIRED'. All 17 parameters are covered, providing critical context the schema lacks.

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 states 'Session lifecycle' and lists seven actions (start, end, capture, history, active, abandon_stale, digest), clearly defining the tool's scope. It differentiates from sibling tools like remember/recall by focusing on session management rather than direct memory operations, though capture could overlap with remember; a clearer distinction would raise the score.

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 provides explicit usage guidance for each action, e.g., 'Use at end of substantial work so the session leaves a trace' for capture, and 'Call this at conversation start instead of N separate recalls' for digest. It contrasts digest with separate recalls, but does not explicitly state when not to use session versus siblings.

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