lesson_learned

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains the conceptual outcome (lessons as schemas) but does not reveal whether the operation is read-only, whether it modifies memory, what inputs are expected, or any side effects. The reference to 'Bartlett 1932' adds obscure context without practical 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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the core action. However, the parenthetical '(schema reuse, Bartlett 1932)' is cryptic and unnecessary, adding noise rather than clarity. Still, it is compact and to the point.

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 tool with no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and no output schema, the description is severely lacking. It gives a high-level concept but omits essential operational details: how parameters work, what the output structure is, whether memories are affected, and when to use it. The agent cannot reliably invoke this tool based on the provided information.

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%, and the description does not mention the parameters 'limit' or 'memory_ids' at all. The agent is left with no explanation of what these parameters mean, their format, or how they affect the extraction. The description adds no value to the bare schema fields.

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 extracts lessons learned from project memories and presents them as reusable schemas. This is a specific verb ('extract') with a clear resource ('project memories') and outcome ('reusable schemas'). It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, but the focus on lessons/schemas is unique enough to avoid major confusion.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or related sibling tools. It implies it is for distilling lessons, but gives no context about scenarios where this would be preferred over other memory-related tools.

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