Record Observation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the action is run-scoped, closes the unknown in the plan, renders in the report, and does not alter the registry. These are key behavioral side effects. It could also mention error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., existence of a run plan) but covers the most critical traits.

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 structured with a one-sentence purpose statement followed by a param explanation paragraph. It is reasonably concise and front-loaded, with every sentence contributing. Slightly dense but not padded.

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 5 params, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the description covers the core action, three of five parameters, and the most important side effect (no registry change). It omits run_dir/now semantics and does not mention any prerequisites or failure modes, but the presence of an output schema lessens the need to describe return values.

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%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains subject ('unknown's id'), outcome ('what the target actually did'), and evidence ('printed result, request id, or URL'), which is valuable. However, run_dir and now are left unexplained, so not all parameters get adequate semantics.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Record the target's observed behavior for one plan unknown'. It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly noting it 'never changes the registry' and that promotion is a separate propose_registry_update, making it easy for an agent to differentiate this from other record_* tools.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use context: 'for one plan unknown (run-scoped)' and from the USER's own run. It also gives a direct when-not-to-use signal: 'it never changes the registry (promotion is a separate propose_registry_update)', which routes the agent to the correct alternative.

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