cos_supervise_record_output

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It transparently states the two side effects (appending to EvidenceBundle and recording in formula_dispatches) and enumerates status values. However, it omits details such as idempotency, overwrite behavior, permissions, or failure consequences, leaving notable behavioral gaps.

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 two sentences, starts with the primary action, and packs essential usage timing and status enumeration into a compact form. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool has 7 parameters with zero schema descriptions and no annotations. The description provides the high-level purpose and when to call, but does not explain parameter semantics or relationships, nor does it discuss edge cases. This is incomplete for a moderately complex tool, especially as the description must compensate for the absence of per-parameter documentation.

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. It only adds meaning for 'status' by listing accepted values (ok|fail|timeout). The other six parameters receive no explanation, thus the description adds minimal value over the raw 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 that the tool appends a formula-agent's output to the session EvidenceBundle and records the dispatch in formula_dispatches. The verb 'append' and specific resources provide a clear, distinct purpose among sibling tools, and the call-after hint reinforces its role.

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 phrase 'Call after each formula-agent returns' provides an explicit condition for usage, which is clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use or name alternative tools, so it lacks exclusions/alternatives that would earn a 5.

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