archy_record_baseline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool computes a score and appends to a history file, and explains it's a wrapper with recording behavior. However, it does not detail side effects (e.g., file creation, overwrite behavior) or permissions needed.

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 only two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the primary action and immediately follows with usage context. 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?

An output schema exists, so return values are accounted for. However, parameter documentation is missing, and the description does not relate this tool to its 12 siblings beyond archy_score. The tool's role as a baseline setter is clear, but completeness is hampered by missing parameter details.

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% with 2 parameters, and the description does not explain what 'path' or 'internal_only' mean. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description should compensate for the low coverage and fails to do so.

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's action: 'Compute the score for a Python project AND append it to .archy/history.jsonl.' It explicitly differentiates from sibling archy_score by noting it's a convenience wrapper for archy_score(record=True), making the specific resource and purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use at the start of an agent session so a later archy_score(strict=True) can detect degradation.' It clearly states when to use it and why, though it does not explicitly exclude alternatives beyond mentioning it's a wrapper for archy_score.

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