record_test_outcome

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a write operation but does not disclose side effects of linking failures, whether it is idempotent, or if it requires an existing session. This lack of behavioral detail leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's impact.

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 sentence with no filler or unnecessary details. It efficiently conveys the main purpose and a secondary linking behavior, making it appropriately concise.

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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a moderately complex input schema with a nested array. The description omits critical information about expected input formats, return behavior, and how the linking works. An agent would likely need additional schema inspection or external knowledge to use this tool confidently.

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 0%, and the description does not reference session_id or test_results at all. It fails to explain what session_id should be or how to structure the test_results array. The schema provides names/types, but the description adds no semantic value, making it insufficient.

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 core action ('Record test results') and adds a distinguishing feature ('link failures to recent code changes') that separates it from sibling tools like record_event or record_decision. It is not a mere tautology because it specifies the linking behavior, though it could be more explicit about the scope.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or contexts where other record tools would be more appropriate. The agent must infer usage from the name and minimal description.

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