record_gotcha

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

No annotations provided. Description says it 'persists in the project's memory' but does not disclose whether entries are appended or overwritten, nor any side effects or limitations. For a simple record tool, more transparency is expected.

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 clear sentences. The first sentence declares purpose, the second provides a usage tip. No fluff, but efficient.

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 the tool's simplicity (3 params, 1 required, no output schema), the description is adequate but lacks behavioral details like idempotency, return values, or whether the text is appended. Meets minimum viability for a simple record tool.

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 covers 100% of parameters. The description adds value for 'project' (omit for current repo) but misleads for 'rationale' by saying 'For a decision, WHY it was made' while the tool is for GOTCHAs, not decisions. This could cause confusion.

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?

Clearly states the action (record) and resource (GOTCHA/pitfall) and purpose (persist in memory). Distinguishes from sibling 'recall_gotchas' by being the recording counterpart, but does not explicitly differentiate from 'record_decision' which is for decisions.

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?

Only provides one piece of guidance: 'Omit project to use the current repo.' No information on when to use this tool versus alternatives like record_decision, or when not to use it.

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