Record QA Observation

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

The description correctly indicates a write operation (recording a note), matching the annotation 'readOnlyHint: false'. It adds context about the type of note but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. However, for a simple observation recording tool, this is adequate.

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?

The description is concise with a clear purpose statement, usage guidance, and structured parameter descriptions. No unnecessary words; every sentence contributes to understanding.

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 the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage context, parameter semantics, and differentiation from siblings. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description provides thorough Args section explaining each parameter: title (headline), evidence (what is visible and why it matters), category (with list of possible values), and screenshot (with valid options). This adds significant value beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states the tool records a qualitative review note without classifying it as a bug. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'record_bug' by specifying this is for observations that do not meet the bug bar.

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?

The description explicitly says when to use this tool (for visual polish, hierarchy, readability, content, responsive, or usability observations that aren't bugs) and implies when not to (for actual bugs, use record_bug).

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