art.memory.negative

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a non-obvious detail (filtering happens via 'type hints in reasons'), and 'get/query' implies a read-only operation. But it does not state whether there are side effects, what happens when no filters are given, or what the return shape is.

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 one compact sentence that front-loads the core verb and resource, and then adds a concrete implementation nuance after the dash. There is no filler or redundant restatement.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, and the description is mostly adequate for a lookup-style operation. But it does not explain the relationship to the related rejection tools, whether at least one parameter should be supplied despite a 'required parameters: 0' signal, or what the returned negative patterns look like.

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 100%, and both properties ('type', 'material') already explain their role as filters. The tool description adds little beyond the natural reading of the schema, and the connection to 'type hints in reasons' is not spelled out in parameter-level terms.

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 uses a clear verb ('get') and resource ('negative patterns/rejected examples') and adds a specific filtering mechanism ('type hints in reasons'). It is clearly distinct from a generic memory query, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from the closely related sibling tools art.memory.get_rejection and art.memory.find_rejections.

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 reader can infer the intended use: it is for retrieving rejected examples or negative patterns filtered by type/material. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool instead of the similar memory rejection tools, nor any mention of exclusions or prerequisites.

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