submit_critique

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It identifies the tool as a write operation ('Record'), but fails to describe side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or return behavior. The presence of an output schema (context indicates one exists) is not mentioned, missing an opportunity to clarify outcomes.

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 extremely concise (one short sentence), but it sacrifices necessary detail. While brevity is valued, the description is underinformative for an agent to correctly invoke the tool. It lacks structure or front-loading of key information, resulting in poor usability.

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 2 parameters (both required, no schema descriptions) and no annotations, the description should compensate but fails to do so. It does not explain what constitutes a critique, how a lens relates, or how the tool fits into the workflow with siblings like 'begin_thought' or 'advance_stage.' The output schema exists but is not leveraged.

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%, meaning descriptions are absent for both parameters (text, session_id). The tool description does not explain these parameters; it only vaguely references 'critique produced by applying the current lens.' It does not clarify the role of session_id or the format of text, leaving the agent without essential semantic context.

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 verb ('Record') and resource ('critique'), indicating the tool saves a critique. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'critique_current_thought' or 'score_current_thought', which may also involve recording or producing critiques. The phrase 'applying the current lens' is vague and lacks clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is used after applying a lens, but there are no explicit use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools exist for similar actions (e.g., critique_current_thought), but no comparative context is given.

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