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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Record whether...' implies a state-changing write, but the description does not disclose side effects, idempotency, required preconditions, or what happens on repeated calls. It provides only a minimal indication of the operation's intent.

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 sentence is short and readable, and it front-loads the core action. However, the parenthetical section references are unexplained and do not help an agent. For a tool with 12 parameters, the description is too thin to be considered appropriately sized, even though it avoids fluff.

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?

Despite having an output schema, this tool has high complexity: 12 parameters, no annotations, and ambiguous sibling relationships. The description does not explain parameter meanings, when to call the tool, or how it relates to the other record/outcome tools. An agent would struggle to invoke it correctly with only this description.

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%, and there are 12 parameters with only titles. The description's 'helped or harmed' phrasing relates vaguely to success/outcome, but it does not explain any specific fields, such as the difference between baseline_score and baseline_performance, or with_strategy_score and performance_with_strategy. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 ('Record') and a clear object ('whether a transferred strategy helped or harmed on a novel task'). It clearly states what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like cognitive.record_experience or cognitive.submit_outcome, so it does not quite reach a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context about prerequisites, ordering (e.g., after propose_strategy or verify_strategy), or when record_experience/submit_outcome would be more appropriate. The §24/§19 references are opaque and do not clarify usage.

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