add_running_gag

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. 'Register' implies creation, but it does not specify whether the operation is safe, requires permissions, or has any side effects. The description is wholly inadequate for understanding the tool's behavior beyond the name.

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?

At just five words, the description is extremely concise but to the point of being uninformative. It front-loads the verb and object, but every word is present; however, the brevity sacrifices essential information about parameters and usage.

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 has five parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and only an output schema (which is not described), the one-sentence description fails to cover essential details like what constitutes a running gag, how to fill parameters, or what the output contains. The description is completely insufficient for an LLM to use this tool correctly.

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 input schema has zero description coverage for its five parameters, and the tool description adds no meaning to any of them. The agent receives no hints about what 'name', 'owner', 'setup_chapter', etc., represent, making correct invocation unlikely.

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 'Register a running gag.' uses a specific verb and resource, making the core purpose clear. However, it lacks any additional detail that would help an agent distinguish this tool from siblings like 'fire_gag' or 'get_running_gags', which is a missed opportunity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'add_established_fact' or 'add_chapter'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess.

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