infer_lesson_from_history

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

The description states the tool will record a rule ('what rule should be recorded'), implying a write operation. However, the annotations set readOnlyHint=true, creating a direct contradiction. No additional behavioral context is provided, such as required permissions 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 a single sentence, concise, and front-loaded with the main action. However, it sacrifices necessary detail, which is a trade-off but not poor structure.

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?

With no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and a contradiction between description and annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to specify what the tool returns, how to use the optional lastAction, and misleads about read/write behavior.

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%, and the description does not explain the parameters beyond mentioning chat history. The optional 'lastAction' parameter is completely unexplained, leaving the agent unsure of its purpose or expected format.

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's purpose: autonomous inference on chat history to identify failure causes and record rules. It is specific with a verb (infer) and resource (chat history), and distinguishes from siblings like 'diagnose_failure' and 'search_lessons' by focusing on rule generation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'diagnose_failure' or 'retrieve_lessons'. The description lacks context on prerequisites or when not to use it, leaving the agent without decision support.

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