Infer Lesson From History

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, but the description mentions 'record' ambiguously. It does not clarify whether the tool modifies state or just returns a suggestion. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, latency) are disclosed beyond the annotation.

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, front-loaded sentence of 18 words. It is concise but omits important parameter and output details. The structure is efficient, though it could be improved with additional context.

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 complexity of the input (nested objects) and the lack of an output schema, the description does not explain the return format or how to interpret results. Critical context about the inference process is missing, making it insufficient for an agent to use without external knowledge.

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 provides no information about the two parameters (chatHistory and lastAction). With nested objects and no schema descriptions, the agent lacks guidance on how to format or provide inputs.

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 infers from chat history to identify failure reasons and rules. The verb 'infer' and resource 'chat history' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'retrieve_lessons' and 'search_lessons' which handle existing lessons.

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 implies use when a failure occurred and a lesson is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool, nor does it mention alternatives. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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