zelinqa_add_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses two useful traits: no question is asked, and no turn is consumed, plus that the text may require language-model analysis. It does not explain side effects, persistence, auth requirements, or what happens to the reported context.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence adds a behavioral note but is somewhat vague. Overall efficient with no wasted words.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations and only 50% schema coverage, the description omits side effects, persistence, and parameter meaning. Output schema covers return values, but the description remains too thin to guide correct invocation.

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 only 50%: the 'conversation' parameter is documented in the schema, but 'summary' is not. The description never names either parameter and only vaguely refers to 'extra conversation context' and 'This text.' It adds no meaningful semantics beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Report extra conversation context.' The phrase 'without asking a question or consuming a turn' distinguishes it from next_question, but it does not name that sibling or differentiate from adjust, feedback, or forget. Clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied by 'without asking a question or consuming a turn' — use it when you have extra context to report and do not want to consume a turn. However, no when-not conditions or named alternatives are given, leaving the agent to infer the full routing decision.

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