remember

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that credentials/tokens would be scrubbed (a security behavior) and implies persistence across sessions. This is valuable beyond the schema, though it does not detail return values or side effects.

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 two sentences: a clear action statement followed by a critical security warning. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary detail.

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 has 3 parameters and an output schema, so return values are covered elsewhere. The description covers purpose and security but leaves parameter meanings unexplained, creating a notable gap in understanding how to properly use the tool.

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 compensate. It only mentions 'milestone/lead' generically but does not explain the specific roles of 'lead', 'note', or 'target'. The parameter names are self-explanatory to some degree, but no detailed semantics are provided.

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 appends a milestone/lead to Novelty's hunt memory for later sessions, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like hunt or hunt_log by emphasizing memory persistence.

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?

It indicates when to use the tool (to save leads/milestones for later) and includes a warning against storing credentials/tokens, implying when not to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for different use cases.

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