learn_fact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It adds value by stating 'never silently distorted' and implicit persistence. However, it fails to disclose side effects on duplicate facts, required permissions, or error behavior.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. First sentence defines purpose, second sentence provides usage context and mentions optional parameter. Every word earns its place.

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?

Covers basic usage and parameters. However, it does not explain return values (no output schema required) nor guide the agent to sibling tools like recall or update_fact. For a knowledge management tool among many siblings, more integration context is needed.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It identifies all parameters (subject, relation, object, source, valid_from) and explains object as 'fact', source as 'with its source', and valid_from as 'optional for valid-time'. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 'Store a fact (subject, relation, object) the agent must recall EXACTLY later, with its source.' It defines the verb (store) and resource (fact). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like update_fact, leaving ambiguity about whether it overwrites or appends.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call whenever the user states a fact, preference, decision, name, number, or rule worth remembering.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance. But it lacks when-not-to-use or mention of alternative tools like update_fact for modifications.

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