knowl_park

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

Annotations already establish non-destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: it mints a short key, returns a hand-off line, is not consumed on resume, and works from any directory across sessions. It does not elaborate on persistence mechanics, but the disclosed traits are genuinely useful and not redundant with annotations.

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 three tightly packed sentences: the first states purpose, the second states the essential behavioral outcome, and the third differentiates the tool from its closest sibling. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

The description covers the key context needed to call this tool confidently: what it does, what it returns, and how it differs from knowl_handoff. The schema covers all parameters. Since there is no output schema, a little more detail about the exact shape of the returned line could improve completeness, but the current description is already sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

All 7 parameters are fully documented in the schema, so the description does not need to repeat them. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Park a workstream the user means to return to.' It also explains the core behavior of minting a short key and returning a verbatim line, and explicitly contrasts itself with knowl_handoff, making the tool's purpose unambiguous even among many siblings.

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 states when the tool is appropriate ('a workstream the user means to return to') and explicitly names the alternative knowl_handoff, explaining the key distinction: this tool is 'not consumed by resuming' and works 'from any directory, any number of sessions later.' This gives an agent clear selection criteria.

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