record_source

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses that the tool stores the file's content hash and summary under .agentpack/, enabling cache reusability. It also mentions the fallback summary behavior. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is destructive or requires specific permissions, though the write nature is implied.

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 impressively concise: three sentences covering purpose, usage guidance, and storage location. It is front-loaded with the core action and efficiently provides essential information without any fluff.

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 the tool's simplicity and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, when to use, and where it writes. It lacks explicit mention of return values or error handling, but for a write-oriented caching tool this is a minor gap. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an AI agent.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100% and baseline is 3, the description adds valuable meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that 'path' is repo-relative, 'snippet' is optional, and 'summary' should always be provided with a fallback. This additional context helps the agent use parameters correctly.

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 defines the tool's purpose: recording a durable conclusion about a source file in the Source Cache. It specifies the action ('Record'), the resource ('source file'), and the key mechanism (storing content hash with summary for reuse). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like record_decision and record_dead_end, which target different concerns.

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 usage guidance: 'Call after inspecting an important file when the conclusion is reusable; do not record every file read, and re-record only when the conclusion itself changed.' This clearly states when to use the tool and when not to, which helps an AI agent decide correctly.

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