record_command_exit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the success/failure convention (exit_code == 0) and the request_id provenance from optimize_context, but says nothing about permissions, idempotency, or what the recorded result feeds into.

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?

Short, front-loaded with the core action and the key distinguishing signal, then a clean Args list. Every line earns its place with minimal waste.

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 recording tool with an output schema present, the description covers the trigger condition, the convention, and all parameter meanings including cross-tool linkage to optimize_context. Only the downstream effect of the recorded result is left unspecified.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains request_id ('the request_id field from the optimize_context response'), exit_code semantics, and that command is an optional short representation. All three parameters are covered.

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 (record) and resource (command exit code) and clarifies the source of the signal ('a real subprocess produced a real exit code'). It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like record_test_result, record_outcome, or record_ci_result.

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?

It gives a clear condition for legit use ('STRONG signal: a real subprocess produced a real exit code'), which implicitly tells the agent when NOT to call it (no real subprocess). It stops short of naming a sibling alternative for those adjacent cases.

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