research.add_step

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation (add) and a precondition (chain must be active), but does not disclose what happens on a non-existent/inactive chain, whether steps are immutable or editable, or any permission/rate constraints.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a compact field list. Slightly redundant with the schema's field descriptions but no wasted prose.

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?

For an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose but omits error behavior, the meaning of chainId, and how queryType enum values should be chosen. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 75%, so most parameters are documented. The description loosely maps to queryText, resultSummary, keyInsight, and decisionMade, adding semantic framing, but the required chainId and queryType (and its enum) are not addressed. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('a reasoning step to an active research chain') and enumerates what the step records. It implicitly distinguishes itself from research.start_chain and research.conclude by operating on an already-active chain, though it doesn't name those 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 phrase 'to an active research chain' implies a prerequisite, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives like research.start_chain (to begin) or research.conclude (to finish). The agent must infer the workflow position.

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