vitest_record_learning

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: the write is 'permanent' and goes into a Knowledge Bank. But it does not clarify what happens on duplicate signatures, whether existing entries are overwritten, or what the response/return behavior is.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes: 'newly resolved' indicates timing, 'permanent' signals persistence, and 'Knowledge Bank' names the storage context. No redundancy.

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 description is adequate for a simple record operation and the schema covers all parameters. But with no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left without important context like duplicate handling, return value, or whether prior lookup is recommended before recording. Sibling workflow context is hinted at but not explained.

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 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds only high-level mapping ('error pattern, root cause, fix template') to the schema fields, without adding new semantic detail about the optional 'name' or 'commentTemplate' parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Records') with a concrete resource ('newly resolved error pattern, root cause, and fix template') and destination ('permanent Knowledge Bank'). It clearly distinguishes this write/learning tool from the read-oriented sibling tools like vitest_lookup_knowledge_bank and vitest_list_knowledge_rules.

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 phrase 'newly resolved error pattern' gives clear context for when to use the tool: after encountering and resolving an error that should be persisted. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or route to alternative tools such as lookup or list.

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