sensing_record_turn

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool survives server restarts and returns a topic shift flag. However, it could elaborate on persistence guarantees or error scenarios.

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?

Three tightly written sentences with zero waste. Each sentence adds distinct value: purpose/frequency, cross-session behavior, return value and follow-up action. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return value (topic shift boolean) and its implication. It also clarifies the purpose of less obvious parameters like injected_memory_ids. Sibling tool names provide context for the tool's role in a workflow.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions, but the description adds useful context: session_id origin, sequence starting at 1, files_touched as files read/modified, injected_memory_ids for feedback scoring. This enhances understanding beyond schema alone.

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 verb 'record' and the resource 'completed conversation turn', specifying its content (user message + Claude reply). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (sensing_start_session, sensing_end_session, sensing_get_status) by focusing on recording individual turns rather than session lifecycle.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this after every exchange', providing clear when-to-use guidance. Also advises to keep the same session_id across server restarts and explains the conditional follow-up (if topic shift detected, call context injection tool).

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