Fractal Process Intelligence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state what finishing a run does, whether it ends an active session, persists data, affects subsequent recording tools, or has side effects. The agent is left entirely uninformed.

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 short, but brevity is not value: the sentence only restates the tool name inside a category label. It does not earn its place because it provides no functional 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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, the tool is severely under-specified. An agent cannot know the effect, prerequisites, relationship to fractal_start_run, or expected behavior when invoked. This is far below minimum viable 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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema already exhaustively covers parameter semantics. The open additionalProperties: true is not a meaningful gap. The description adds nothing about parameters, but none are needed.

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 is essentially a category label plus the tool name: 'Fractal Research MCP recorder tool: fractal_finish_run'. It does not explicitly state the action or resource, so the agent must infer from the name that it finishes or completes a run. This is a tautological restatement rather than a functional definition.

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 call this tool versus alternatives like fractal_start_run or the fractal_record_* tools. The description provides no context for selecting this tool or avoiding others.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states only that this is a 'recorder tool' with no mention of side effects, writes, permissions, outputs, or any other behavioral trait.

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 short, but this is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. A one-sentence label that merely restates the tool name does not earn credit for good structure.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and five sibling tools, the description needed to explain what fractal_record_agent actually does and when to invoke it. It provides neither, so the tool cannot be reliably selected or called 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?

There are zero documented parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but with no parameters to describe, this is not a significant gap.

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 is 'Fractal Research MCP recorder tool: fractal_record_agent', which essentially restates the tool name and labels it as a 'recorder tool' without naming a specific verb, action, or resource. It also does nothing to distinguish this tool from sibling tools like fractal_record_claim, fractal_record_source, or fractal_record_tool.

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 or when to prefer a sibling. Given multiple record_* siblings, the description provides no selection criteria, conditions, or alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state what recording a claim does, what side effects occur, what data is stored, or what the tool returns.

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 short, but the brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness. It restates the tool name and adds only a generic 'recorder tool' label, so the sentence does not earn its place.

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?

With four similar record_* siblings, no annotations, no output schema, and an open input schema, the description needs to provide significant context but provides none. An agent has almost no information to select or invoke the tool 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?

The input schema declares no parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the zero-parameter baseline applies. The description adds no parameter semantics, but none are needed for zero declared parameters.

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 is tautological: it labels the tool as a 'recorder tool' and repeats the tool name, but never states what a 'claim' is, what action is performed, or how it differs from fractal_record_agent, fractal_record_source, or fractal_record_tool. An agent cannot determine this tool's function from the text.

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 about when to use this tool, what problem it solves, or when a sibling should be preferred. No alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this tool creates, updates, reads, or mutates data, what side effects occur, or what the tool returns. Calling it a 'recorder tool' implies a write operation, but the concrete behavior is entirely undisclosed.

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 very short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It contains only a restatement of the tool name and adds no information that an agent could not derive from the name itself. Every sentence should earn its place, and this one does not.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and meaningful parameter schema, the description is the only source of context. It is completely inadequate: it fails to explain what 'source' means, what the tool does, what side effects occur, or how this relates to the sibling recorder tools. An agent cannot safely invoke this tool based on the provided information.

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 tool has zero named parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden on the description. The schema is effectively empty with additionalProperties true, so nothing more is expected at the parameter level. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.

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 is essentially a restatement of the tool name: 'Fractal Research MCP recorder tool: fractal_record_source'. It identifies the tool as a recorder but does not specify a verb, the resource being recorded, or the action performed. It fails to distinguish this from sibling recorder tools like fractal_record_agent, fractal_record_claim, and fractal_record_tool.

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 about when to use this tool versus the sibling recording tools. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent must rely entirely on the tool name to infer any usage intent.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it says nothing about side effects, return values, authentication, or whether it mutates state. The name implies 'recording' but does not explain consequences or behavior.

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 single sentence is short but utterly redundant with the tool name. Rather than being concise, it is under-specified and provides no actionable information, so it fails the 'every sentence earns its place' criterion.

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 completely inadequate for a tool with five sibling tools, no annotations, and no output schema. An agent has no way to know what the tool does, what input it accepts, what it returns, or when to choose it, making this definition effectively empty.

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 tool has zero defined parameters and the schema is an empty object with additionalProperties allowed, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description adds no parameter information, but with no parameters documented, this is not a meaningful gap. Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools 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 'Fractal Research MCP recorder tool: fractal_record_tool' is a tautology that restates the tool name without specifying what is recorded, what action is performed, or how it differs from siblings like fractal_record_agent or fractal_record_claim. It gives only a generic label, not a clear verb+resource purpose.

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 the sibling recording tools. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to guess which tool fits a given task.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and behavior. It only says the tool is a 'recorder tool' and repeats the name; it does not state whether starting a run creates state, requires prior setup, or has side effects. An agent has no information about what invoking this tool will do.

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 short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It front-loads the tool name and a generic 'recorder tool' label, yet the single sentence does not earn its place because it conveys almost no operational meaning.

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 the low parameter complexity, the description is missing the most basic context: what starting a run means, what it records, and how it relates to the sibling tools. With no annotations and no output schema, the description needed to explain the tool's behavior and lifecycle role but fails to do so. It is inadequate for an agent to select and invoke this tool 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The schema has trivial 100% coverage because it is an empty object, and there is nothing meaningful missing on the parameter side. The baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 is essentially a label: 'Fractal Research MCP recorder tool: fractal_start_run'. It restates the tool name and gives no verb, target, or behavioral content, so an agent cannot determine what starting a run actually does. It is a tautology rather than a meaningful purpose statement.

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 or when to prefer sibling tools such as fractal_finish_run or fractal_record_agent. The name hints at starting a run, but the description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This is a case of no guidance rather than misleading guidance.

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