Persist this triage's explanation to local history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals the tool performs a local file write only, is safe to call without asking the user, and appends/increments occurrence count. It does not cover edge cases like failure handling or file locking, but provides strong transparency for a simple local operation.

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?

Three sentences: first states the action and effect, second clarifies safety and contrast with publish_triage, third gives sequential context. Every sentence is information-dense with no filler. Front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 local-write tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, safety, usage context, and workflow integration with sibling tools. The main gap is insufficient parameter semantics for two of the five fields, but overall the tool is adequately contextualized within its triage pipeline.

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 low (40%), and the description does not compensate. It references 'failure signature' and 'explanation' conceptually but does not add meaning for the signature or suggestedFix parameters, nor clarify the relationship between repo/signature/category beyond what the schema already states. The description adds little value beyond the schema's sparse field descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('appends') and resource ('explanation for a failure signature to the local history store'), and clearly states it also bumps occurrence count. It distinguishes itself from the sibling publish_triage by explicitly contrasting local write vs. shared dashboard.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('Do this after explaining a failure') and names the alternative (publish_triage) with a clear differentiator (local vs. shared dashboard). It also ties the action to the purpose of enabling future find_similar_past_failures calls, making the usage context unambiguous.

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