add

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

Without annotations, the description partially covers behavioral traits (e.g., linking behavior, batch nudges, level effects). However, it omits details on parameters like tags, status, and relates, and does not clarify side effects or permission needs.

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 a single, dense paragraph filled with abbreviations and jargon (e.g., 'dc/lr id', 'box', 'nudges'). It lacks clear structure or front-loading, making it hard to parse quickly.

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 complexity (12 parameters, no annotations), the description covers core functionality but leaves gaps (tags, status, relates) and relies on domain familiarity. The output schema exists but isn't referenced.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description explains 9 of 12 parameters (type, title, msg, links, push_to, items, level, flow, help), but ignores tags, status, and relates. The explanations are dense and assume prior knowledge.

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 indicates the tool adds 'lore' or 'doc' entries, defining each type (lore=journal entry/decision, doc=spec/plan). However, the phrasing is domain-specific and could be more intuitive for new users.

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 context on when to use batch creation over single calls and mentions checklist usage, but does not compare with sibling tools like 'link' or 'doc_map', nor does it specify when NOT to use the tool.

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