Record Evidence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'persist', implying a write operation, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting, idempotency), authorization needs, or performance implications.

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 short sentence, which is concise but underspecified for a tool with 7 parameters. It lacks structure (e.g., no separate sections) and does not front-load critical information effectively.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the tool's usage, expected output, or behavior for key parameters like 'session_id' and 'tags'.

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%, meaning the input schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'sources, findings, limitations, and confidence' which correspond to some parameters, but does not explain their semantics, expected formats, or relationships (e.g., optionality, constraints).

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 action ('persist') and the resource ('normalized evidence sources, findings, limitations, and confidence'), providing a specific purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'record_decision', which also records data.

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 over alternatives (e.g., record_decision, reflect_outcome). No context about prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is appropriate or inappropriate.

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