record_dead_end

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the side effect ('Writes one event under .agentpack/') and a data handling policy ('secret-like values are redacted'), which is good transparency for a recording tool.

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 sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second adds usage context and a side-effect note. Very concise and well-structured.

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 a simple logging tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it covers purpose, when to use, where data is stored, and a data handling note. Could mention persistence, but not required.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it only provides general context (redaction hint) that is already implied.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Record' and the resource 'an approach that failed', making the tool's purpose clear. It distinguishes from siblings like 'record_decision' by focusing on failures for durable reasons.

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 specifies when to call ('when an attempted direction is abandoned for a durable reason') and when not to ('not for ordinary debugging iterations'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it in favor of another.

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