Osiris.Observe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about persistence, whether the call mutates stored state, what 'seal (ecart = derive)' implies, or any side effects. 'Consigne' hints at a write, but the agent gets no confirmation of durability, idempotency, 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?

A single short sentence is front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than concise. For a tool with 11 enumerated kind values and specialized fields like seal and context_tokens, one cryptic line does not earn its place as the entire description.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the schema documents all params. But with no annotations and an opaque one-liner, an agent still lacks the context to know when this tool applies or what recording an 'action' with duplicates/loops/externalization actually means.

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 every one of the 8 parameters is documented in the schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning — the words 'doublons, boucles, externalisation' are not mapped to any field such as kind or seal.

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 verb 'Consigne' (records/logs) plus 'une action' gives a bare bones of purpose, but the qualifier 'doublons, boucles, externalisation' is cryptic jargon that does not explain what is actually recorded or why. It fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like osiris.checkpoint or osiris.handoff, which plausibly also persist state.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus osiris.checkpoint, osiris.recall, or osiris.handoff, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must guess from the tool name alone that this is for logging an observation after an action.

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