create_problem

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

Annotations already indicate non-idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it 'registers' a problem (implying creation), but no further behavioral details (e.g., effect on existing data, permissions). Minimal added value beyond annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no superfluous words. Every sentence serves a clear function.

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?

Provides essential usage guidance but lacks details on parameter semantics, return values (despite output schema exists), and what 'register' entails. For a creation tool with six parameters, more context (e.g., uniqueness constraints, effect on related data) would be beneficial.

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 the description provides no explanation of the six parameters (e.g., 'title', 'paper_refs', 'topic_tags'). Only the required 'title' is implied by context. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 registers an 'open research question / failure mode' and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'recall' and 'list_problems'. The verb 'register' combined with the resource 'problem' is specific and unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly advises 'Do this once per distinct problem' and instructs to 'Use `recall` first to check it isn't already logged', providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with a named alternative tool.

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