practice_answer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral effect ('apply testing-effect reinforcement') and output behavior ('return the correct content as feedback'), but it does not explain side effects such as memory modification, competition suppression (despite a suppress_competitors parameter), or any limitations. This is moderate 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('Score'), and each clause contributes distinct information: scoring, reinforcement, and feedback. No wasted words or 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?

With 4 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, and no annotations, this one-sentence description is under-specified. It does not clarify the meaning of optional parameters, the output format beyond 'correct content', or when to choose this tool over similar practice/retrieval tools. An agent would struggle to invoke it correctly without additional context.

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 for undefined parameters. It only loosely implies 'attempt' as the retrieval attempt, but does not explain memory_id, generation_bonus, or suppress_competitors. The description adds almost no meaning to the 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 uses a specific verb 'Score' with a clear resource 'retrieval attempt', and adds two additional actions ('apply testing-effect reinforcement' and 'return the correct content as feedback'). This distinguishes it from siblings like practice_report or recall, which focus on planning or simple retrieval, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 states what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it or how it differs from alternatives. There is no mention of contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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