team_learn

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool stores a lesson and that it shows up in team_recall with attribution. It does not mention any destructive behavior, auth requirements, or side effects. The description provides some behavioral context but is not fully transparent.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, efficient sibling comparison, and outcome. 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?

10 params, 5 required. With 100% schema coverage, description covers core behavior and differentiates from sibling. No output schema. It does not explain if multiple lessons per topic are allowed or idempotency, but is reasonably complete for a storage 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds meaning beyond schema: explains `author` is required for team attribution, mentions `topic` format ('category:keyword'), and notes the lesson's appearance in team_recall. This adds value.

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 stores a lesson in a shared team brain ('Store a lesson in a shared team brain'). It distinguishes from sibling `learn_from_attempts` by noting it requires an author name. This is a specific verb-resource combination with 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?

Description explicitly says it is like `learn_from_attempts` but REQUIRES an author name, giving a clear context for when to use this over the sibling. It also mentions the outcome (`Shows up in team_recall with 'by <author>'`). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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