record_missed_detection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions feeding an 'autonomous improvement loop' but does not explain side effects, data persistence, permissions, or whether the action is reversible. The lack of annotation coverage combined with sparse behavioral details is a significant gap.

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 concise with a clear purpose statement and an Args list. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the section could be more tightly integrated.

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 presence of an output schema and 5 parameters (2 required), the description covers the parameters adequately but lacks context on the recording process, consequences, or integration with the improvement loop. The completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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%, so the description compensates by listing each parameter with explanations and examples (e.g., 'detection_type: Category of what was missed (e.g., security_flaw, performance_bug)', 'severity: (P0/P1/P2) or auto'). This adds meaning beyond the schema's titles and defaults.

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: to record something the system missed, feeding the autonomous improvement loop. It uses a specific verb 'record' and a specific resource 'missed detection', distinguishing it from sibling tools like record_mistake or record_hypothesis.

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 usage when something is missed, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to other record tools such as record_decision or record_prospective_failure.

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