twining_record

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so well: it reveals persistent side effects ('summary becomes a status post', 'findings become blackboard entries visible to future agents') and the auto-inference behavior ('Scope is auto-inferred from git diff if omitted'). Supplementary schema text adds truncation and similarity-weighting behavior. It does not explicitly flag that this is a mutating write operation, but the creation language makes that evident.

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 compact — five short sentences that front-load the action, then give timing, then enumerate the three output side effects, then the auto-inference note. No filler or redundant phrasing. It loses one point only because the schema descriptions that follow are verbose, though that is schema, not description, territory.

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 complexity (14 parameters) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, timing, and side effects but omits success/return behavior — the agent is not told what comes back on completion (e.g., entry IDs or confirmation). For a workflow tool of this complexity, a note on return or error semantics would round it out, though the main record flow is well established.

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 100%, so the schema itself documents all 14 parameters richly (truncation rules, warning/need prefixes, decision structure, supersedes constraints). The description adds only 'Scope is auto-inferred from git diff if omitted,' which duplicates the schema's own scope text. Per the rubric, high coverage yields a baseline 3, and the description contributes little unique parameter meaning beyond the 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Record what you did, any choices you made, and anything you discovered.' It then spells out the distinct outputs ('The summary becomes a status post. Decisions become tracked records with rationale. Findings become blackboard entries visible to future agents'), which clearly differentiates this session-logging tool from siblings like twining_post, twining_status, and twining_assemble.

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 gives explicit timing guidance ('Call before committing or ending a session') that tells the agent when to invoke this tool. It does not name sibling alternatives or state exclusions, but the workflow role is clear enough that an agent can infer when twining_record applies versus querying (twining_why, twining_graph_query) or maintenance (twining_housekeeping) tools.

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