learn

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a real trait — the lesson reappears on its own next to the matching error — but says nothing about persistence, deduplication on repeat calls, or any write-side permissions/effects.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then the example, then the behavioral note, followed by a tidy Args block. Efficient overall, with only mild redundancy between the main sentence and the Args section.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and parameters are well covered. For a simple write tool it is nearly complete; the main gap is no link to the 'recall' sibling that would make the store/retrieve pair obvious.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully documents all three params: path as an absolute project path, lesson as a one-sentence statement, and about as optional scoping (error code like F821, file, or test name). This adds substantial meaning and format hints the bare schema lacks.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Guarda una lección del proyecto") and reinforces it with a concrete example ("usar Decimal, nunca float, para dinero"). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling 'recall', which likely retrieves these lessons, so it falls short of the top band.

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?

Gives clear usage context: record a lesson so you don't repeat an error, and notes it will resurface automatically alongside that error. It never states when NOT to use it nor names 'recall' as the retrieval alternative, so no explicit exclusions.

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