vaglio_inscribe

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: copies full text, regenerates index, and refuses status='falsified'. It does not cover all aspects (e.g., error handling, idempotency) but is notably transparent about side effects and constraints.

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 five sentences, each adding value: core action, context, side effects, refusal rule. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It explains the main function and a key constraint, but the bulk of parameters are unelaborated, leaving agents to infer meaning.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description only mentions the 'status' parameter (via refusal) and implicitly 'body' (as full text). The other 9 parameters (kin, tier, method, session, disclosure, etc.) remain unexplained, providing minimal semantic help.

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 verb 'write' and the resource 'archive as a versioned, schema-valid record'. It distinguishes from siblings (search, read, status, sources, appraise) by detailing the inscribing action.

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 finalizing a run into the archive ('closes the loop'), but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or when-not-to-use. No direct comparison to siblings.

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