mark_advice

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that only minimal feedback metadata and user feedback text are saved, and that original prompt, problem text, and full advice are not preserved. This adds valuable context about side effects and limitations.

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 the purpose front-loaded in the first line. It provides necessary details in a few sentences without verbosity. Slightly more structure (e.g., listing parameters) could improve readability.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description should fully explain inputs and outcomes. It covers some parameters but misses 'reason' and 'outcome', and lacks details on return value or errors. Adequate but not complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the source of advice_id/consultation_id and the meaning of decision. However, 'reason' and 'outcome' parameters are not explained, leaving ambiguity. The description partially compensates but is incomplete.

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 action 'mark whether an advice is useful' and the resource ('advice'), and specifies that it writes to Advice Memory. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like mark_finding or mark_superseded, keeping it from a 5.

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 provides guidance on where to get parameters (from consult_problem) and lists the allowed decision values. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclude cases.

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