record_problem

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

No annotations provided, so the description should cover behavioral aspects. It only mentions returning a status string, omitting details about side effects, mutation, or safety (e.g., idempotency, rate limits).

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, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value with 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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and 4 parameters, the description is minimal. It covers purpose and usage but fails to provide behavioral or parameter guidance that would make it fully complete.

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 the description adds little beyond schema. It does not elaborate on how parameters like severity or module should be used, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states it creates a 'Problem node' for bugs or technical debt, which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'resolve_problem' and 'get_open_problems'.

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 this when discovering bugs or technical debt', giving clear usage context. Could mention when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient.

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