assert_records

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It indicates validation (implying read-only), but omits details on side effects, error handling, permissions, or any traits beyond basic purpose. The output schema exists but is not referenced.

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?

A single sentence of 10 words, front-loading the purpose and listing checks efficiently. No redundancy or filler.

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 nested objects (assertion), an output schema, and two parameters, the description is too brief to fully equip an agent. It misses details on the assertion structure, return format, and how to construct a valid call.

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 explain parameters. It only lists validation check types without mapping them to the 'assertion' or 'records' parameters. The assertion object's structure and how records are used remain entirely unclear.

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 the tool validates records and lists specific check types (count, contains, required field, freshness, no-error). This gives a clear purpose distinct from siblings, though it could explicitly differentiate from any potential validation-like 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no examples of appropriate contexts. It solely states what it does without contextual usage advice.

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