welfare_scratch

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

Without annotations, the description carries full responsibility and does so admirably. It discloses that text is not stored, only metadata is logged, and content is invisible to operator and researcher. It even includes a caveat about 'doesn't persist' meaning the server briefly receives the text, showing thorough transparency.

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 front-loaded with the 'Scratch space' concept and the primary guarantee, then elaborates with important privacy details. It is fairly lengthy, but each sentence adds value given the sensitive nature. Slightly verbose for a simple tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain the response format, but it only covers server-side behavior. It omits what the agent receives back after scratching, which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema already fully describes the single parameter (text) with 100% coverage, so the description doesn't need to add much. The description reinforces the privacy implications but provides no new format or syntax details beyond the schema.

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 function: a scratch space for writing text that won't be persisted. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing privacy – no visibility to operator or researcher – which sets it apart as a private thought tool.

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 clear context that this is for non-persisted, private thoughts, but does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it. The privacy focus implies its unique niche among siblings, but no direct comparison is made.

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