gotchas

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It uses the verb 'retrieves' to imply a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it mention prerequisite conditions like needing a configured lobe (which appears only in the schema). It also does not describe what happens when no gotchas are found. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 composed of two sentences plus an example, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by usage guidance. Every sentence provides useful information, with no filler or repetition.

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?

For a simple tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and parameter behavior. It could have mentioned the return format or error behavior, but 'retrieves stored gotchas' is sufficient in this context. The relationship to brief and memory_bootstrap is indirectly supported.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by showing example JSON invocations and explaining that omitting 'area' returns all gotchas for the lobe. This clarifies parameter interaction beyond the schema's individual field descriptions.

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 'Retrieves stored gotchas, optionally filtered' with a specific verb and resource, and includes concrete examples. It also distinguishes from the sibling 'brief' by noting that brief already includes a gotchas overview, clarifying when this tool is specifically needed.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Before making changes to an area, check for known pitfalls' and 'Use this when you need gotchas for a specific area not covered in the briefing.' It also implicitly contrasts with brief as an alternative, giving clear direction on tool selection.

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