bowire.assert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does reasonably well: it discloses this is a mutating append to an on-disk file, names the default file path, and states the return value (assertion id + attached step). It omits whether existing assertions are replaced vs. appended, permission needs, and failure modes for a non-existent recording.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then targeting, then the assertion shape and ops, then the return value. Four dense sentences with no filler, though the op enumeration slightly duplicates the schema enum list.

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, the description supplies the return shape (assertion id + step), covers the assertion object format across two storage modes, and documents all six parameters including target resolution. Nothing an agent needs to invoke correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds value beyond the schema: the mutual exclusivity of recordingId/recordingPath and the file-resolution behavior for recordingId are not in the schema descriptions. It also reinforces the path='status' special case and op-specific expected semantics.

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?

States a specific verb (Append), resource (test assertion), and target (a step inside an on-disk recording), which is unambiguous and distinct from every sibling tool. An agent can identify exactly what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Explains target selection clearly: recordingId resolves against ~/.bowire/recordings.json, otherwise the supplied recordingPath is used, and the two are mutually exclusive. It doesn't name an alternative tool or state exclusions, since no sibling overlaps, but the operational context is explicit.

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