record_prompt_intent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states that the tool 'Records the prompt with extracted intent for adaptive learning', but does not mention side effects, data persistence, permissions required, idempotency, or error conditions. For a recording tool, this is insufficient 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 front-loaded with the critical trigger instruction, followed by a brief purpose statement and a list of parameters. It is relatively concise with no wasted words. However, the parameter list could be better integrated into prose for improved readability.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, usage trigger, and all parameters. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, it lacks important behavioral details such as idempotency, error handling, and data retention policy, which are important for a recording tool used on every prompt. It is adequate for basic usage but not 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides meanings for all 6 parameters in the Args section, including examples for intent_category and reasoning_type. This adds significant value beyond the schema, though it could include more detail on acceptable formats or constraints.

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: 'Call this on EVERY user prompt to classify intent and detect reasoning type.' It specifies the verb 'record' and the resource 'prompt intent'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like record_decision or record_mistake by focusing specifically on user prompts.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this on EVERY user prompt.' It implies a constant usage pattern, which serves as clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, though the focus on prompts differentiates it from siblings.

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