amplify_learn

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'remembers in future sessions' implying persistence, but lacks details on side effects, idempotency, or deduplication behavior (though pattern_key hints at it, the description does not explain). The tool's complexity (11 params) warrants more transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without extraneous detail.

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 absence of an output schema and the tool's complexity (11 parameters, many optional), the description is underspecific. It does not explain what the agent should expect after recording (e.g., return value, success indication) or guide usage of optional fields like context, resolution, prevention, trigger, pattern_key.

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%, providing baseline value. The description adds a general purpose statement but does not enhance understanding of individual parameters beyond the schema's own descriptions. No additional semantics or context are provided.

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 records a lesson (mistake, success, insight) for future recall. It uses a specific verb 'record' and resource 'lesson', distinguishing it from sibling tools like amplify_record_claim or amplify_global_patterns.

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 implies the tool should be used when the agent wants to save a lesson for future sessions, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like amplify_record_claim or amplify_evidence_chain. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are provided.

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