Add Webhound Sidecar Notes

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (write) and openWorldHint=true (side effects). The description adds valuable context: 'No spend', 'Does not interrupt the Planner/Executor/Verifier cycle', and 'Does not change session status.' These details go beyond the annotations, though some aspects like storage limits are not mentioned.

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 three sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, behavioral guarantees, and usage boundaries. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff.

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 that adds notes to a running session, the description covers purpose, behavioral impact, and usage constraints. It does not mention what happens if the session is invalid or whether notes accumulate or overwrite, but the output schema exists to clarify return values. Slightly incomplete but adequate.

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 input schema already describes many parameters (summary, hypothesis, source_urls) with explanations. The tool description adds only a general note about 'concrete source-backed notes or hypotheses', which aligns with the schema but provides no additional detail. With schema coverage existing, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action 'Save concrete source-backed notes or hypotheses', specifies the context 'while Webhound keeps running', and explicitly distinguishes from other tools by stating 'Do not use for user intent changes.' It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 tells when to use (save discovered notes/hypotheses) and what not to use for (user intent changes). It also notes that it does not affect the running cycle or session status. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list or update sidecar notes, which would strengthen guidance.

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