n2_mimir_lessons

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Inspect' implies a read-only operation and the warning that legacy insights are not implicitly verified is genuinely useful behavioral context, but permissions, result limits, pagination, and whether the agent parameter filters scope are all undisclosed.

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 tight sentences with the capability statement front-loaded and no filler. Minor deduction because 'correction IDs' and 'legacy insights' are unexplained jargon that a reader cannot resolve from the text alone.

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?

It enumerates the categories of information returned, which partly compensates for the absence of an output schema. However, with three undocumented parameters and no annotations, the definition leaves too much unstated about scope resolution and result shape for a tool this configurable.

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 0% and the description never mentions project, agent, or lessonId. The word 'scoped' hints that scoping exists but does not say which parameter performs it or what happens when lessonId is omitted, leaving all three parameters semantically undocumented.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Inspect') with named artifacts: lesson state, recorded evidence, correction IDs, review history. This distinguishes it reasonably from write-oriented siblings like n2_mimir_lesson_propose and n2_mimir_lesson_review, though it never explicitly names those alternatives or states that it is the read counterpart.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus n2_mimir_recall, n2_mimir_lesson_evidence, or n2_mimir_lesson_review. The second sentence ('Legacy insights are not implicitly verified') is a data-trust caveat, not a usage condition, so the agent must infer the selection criteria.

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