stenographer_ingest_exchange

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Ingest', implying a write operation, but does not disclose consequences (e.g., whether it overwrites or appends), authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens on failure. More detail is needed.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the core function, the second gives usage timing. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It lacks details about session_id (optional, possibly for grouping), content length limits, and return behavior. Given that the agent needs to decide when to call and how to set parameters, more completeness is warranted.

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%, meaning the description adds no explanations for parameters. The schema includes role, content, and session_id, but the description does not clarify their semantics, especially session_id (optional) or content limits. Property names are self-explanatory, but without explanation of session_id's role, the agent may misuse it.

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 'Ingest a conversation turn', specifying the verb 'Ingest' and resource 'conversation turn'. It also provides timing context ('after every significant user or assistant message'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like compact, get brief, mark milestone, query history, which are clearly different operations.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call after every significant user or assistant message.' It does not explicitly state when not to call or mention alternatives, but the sibling tools serve distinct purposes, so no confusion. Some nuance about non-significant messages could improve it.

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