vibe_learn

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions tracking and prevention but fails to detail critical aspects like whether this is a read/write operation, data persistence, permissions needed, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 5 parameters and potential data mutation.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy or unnecessary details. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for its informational content.

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's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, output expectations, and differentiation from siblings, making it inadequate for guiding an agent in practical use beyond a high-level purpose.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, providing clear documentation for all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating or enhancing the schema's information.

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 tool's purpose as a 'pattern recognition system that tracks common errors and solutions to prevent recurring issues,' which specifies the verb (tracks) and resource (errors/solutions). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'vibe_check,' leaving room for ambiguity about their distinct roles.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, including its sibling 'vibe_check.' It lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the purpose alone.

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