queue_durable_fact

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

Discloses conditional behavior (remote write vs. local queue) but lacks details on side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or queue capacity. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but remains somewhat vague.

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?

Single sentence with no wasted words, front-loaded with key behavior. Could be slightly improved by adding brief parameter context without becoming verbose.

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?

Lacks parameter descriptions and deeper behavioral context. While an output schema exists and reduces the need to describe return values, the omission of parameter semantics makes it incomplete for a 5-parameter tool.

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?

Description provides zero information about the 5 parameters (agent_name, entity, attribute, text, confidence). Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description adds no value beyond basic field titles.

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?

Description clearly states the tool writes a durable fact remotely when online, otherwise queues locally. It differentiates from siblings like 'sync_offline_facts' (which likely flushes queued facts) and 'pull_truth' (reading), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides condition for usage (online vs. offline) and implies that queued facts need later flushing (via sibling 'sync_offline_facts'). However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or contraindications.

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