runmeter_record

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

The description adds substantial value beyond the basic annotations by detailing cost-handling logic: explicit cost_usd takes precedence, otherwise computed from a pricing table, and unpriced models result in null cost with a response note. This helps the agent predict behavior without contradicting the 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?

The description is two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence provides meaningful detail (explicit vs computed cost, unpriced behavior). No wasted words.

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 covers the primary behavior and a key edge case (unpriced model), while return format is covered by the output schema. It does not mention required fields or validation, but those are already in the schema, so the description is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 description enriches the meaning of cost-related parameters (e.g., what happens if the model is unpriced) that the schema does not fully cover. However, it does not explain the overall `run` object structure or other parameters, and the top-level schema coverage is 0%, so compensation is partial.

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 a specific action ('Record a single LLM/agent run') and the resource targeted, plus the outcome ('return the stored row'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like runmeter_list or runmeter_get, which read or summarize data.

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 that this tool is for logging new runs, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or exclusions, so the usage context is implied rather than directly guided.

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