record_tool_call

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and reveals key behaviors: writing signed envelopes, appending to chain, returning hash, configurable persistence path. It omits potential failure modes, permission requirements, or side effects, but covers core behavior well.

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?

Three sentences (50 words) front-load capability IDs and action, then detail functionality. No redundant phrases; every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite mentioning return of integrity hash, the description lacks explanation for 14 parameters, omits output schema details, and provides no examples. For a complex audit-writing tool, this is insufficient for an agent to use 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for 14 parameters. The description only mentions 'input + output hashes' but fails to explain critical parameters like turn_index, user_text, producer, trace_id, etc. This leaves agents without meaningful guidance on parameter usage.

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 tool call with input/output hashes as a signed envelope, appends to audit chain, returns integrity hash, and persists to file. It distinguishes from sibling audit tools (decision, anomaly, query, verification) by focusing solely on recording the call itself.

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 implies use for recording tool calls in an audit trail but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like audit_record_decision or query_audit_history. No when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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